People Who Pronounce and Spell the Name of Jesus In Weird Old Testament Variants are Going to Hell

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Maybe I'm just foggy from sleep, but I think you got that backwards - if you look at the linked file (I *love* EliYah.com, by the way, thanks) which I'm assuming is from the 1611 KJV, it's got Iesus, which I believe is the latinized version, with Iesous preceding in the original greek (Strong's G2424 - Iēsous).

Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say? Apologies if so...short on sleep again. Be well and thanks again, I'd made everyone bookmark EliYah's site if possible and I'm in the fellowship finder.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was addressing this portion of your post specifically:

then finally Jesus with King James and a few others.

And pointing out that the 1611 KJB didn't have "Jesus" in it, later editions went to it. The 1611 KJB used "Iesus". The 1611 also uses "Iudge" instead of "Judge". The "J" letter and phonetic sound is a relatively new construct of spoken and written languages.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Thank you excellent insight, what I was trying to get at. God would not comdem for using Jesus name as Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever, that makes no sense.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
Ah, gotcha. Yes, you're very correct then, my apologies. I thought you were reversing the orders of transliteration and I missed the fact that the King James itself was the original appearance of Iesus...our later anglicized versions flowed down to Jesus.

Thanks for the clarity.

reply to post by Headband7


it all goes back to Constantine imposing Christianity on everyone in Rome and it's territories. Back even farther to Nero burning Rome to blame it on the Christians to bring their cult religion to light, back to the seige of Jerusalem and the exiling/killing of the Jews there so they could not rufute these new Christian ideas. In short there is only God one above all, call him whatever you want.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This is GREAT!!! Interesting set-up. HILARIOUS punch line... wait. This isn't a joke???
Oh. You're for real??? Great, who let the creationist out???

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Ah, gotcha. Yes, you're very correct then, my apologies. I thought you were reversing the orders of transliteration and I missed the fact that the King James itself was the original appearance of Iesus...our later anglicized versions flowed down to Jesus.

Thanks for the clarity.

Yes indeed. And using "Jesus" is quite fine as well, I have His name spelled this way in two places on my forum signature and under my username. But, I know that when he walked the shores of Galilee and climed the mountains of Judea He was known by His people as "Yahshua".

Yahshua Ha Moshiach = "Jesus THE Anointed one"

Originally posted by Headband7
reply to post by Headband7

 

it all goes back to Constantine imposing Christianity on everyone in Rome and it's territories.

Dude, that's not accurate. Constantine only legalized Christianity. His 2nd successor was the emperor who made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

reply to post by Headband7

back to the seige of Jerusalem and the exiling/killing of the Jews there so they could not rufute these new Christian ideas

What???

The temple of Herod in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. because of jewish extremists rebelled and tried to retake the temple which caused its destruction at the hands of the Romans and the first exile began. The Romans returned in 135 A.D. to finish the job destroying Jerusalem and exiled the rest of the jews that they could find. The jews' exile had nothing to do with christians, Jesus taught if you lived by the sword you died by the sword, he preached non-violence and to love your enemies and your neighbors.

Methinks you are a jew trying to blame Christ for the destruction of your precious temple. Well if you convert to christianity, you no longer need that no longer existing temple, the rebuilt temple to the Lord will be in your heart.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Let me assure you I am not jesting.
Witchcraft is based on Hebrew letters, so this is just a sneaky way to get people demon possessed.

In that case, this post worries me somewhat.

First thing, "witchcraft" as far as I'm aware is not bound to any certain language or alphabet. There's 'witchcraft' involving enochian, latin, and a whole host of other languages.

Secondly, this seems to fly in the face of the fact that hebrew is the language spoken by Christ and others of his time and preceding him as well, in addition to being the language the torah was given to us by the father in.

By extension, this would also seem to implicate hebrew-speaking jewish believers in Christ...as we're taught quite clearly in the bible, it is our heart and intents that are read, and I personally don't believe one can be duped through linguistics into turning honest and intended worship of the father into something completely contrary to its clear goal.

Odd views you've got here, friend. I haven't had a chance to read through the entire thread as yet, but would you have a link to some information clarifying where exactly you're getting all this so I can get some background on your opinions here?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Headband7

 

back to the seige of Jerusalem and the exiling/killing of the Jews there so they could not rufute these new Christian ideas

What???

The temple of Herod in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. because of jewish extremists rebelled and tried to retake the temple which caused its destruction at the hands of the Romans and the first exile began. The Romans returned in 135 A.D. to finish the job destroying Jerusalem and exiled the rest of the jews that they could find. The jews' exile had nothing to do with christians, Jesus taught if you lived by the sword you died by the sword, he preached non-violence and to love your enemies and your neighbors.

Methinks you are a jew trying to blame Christ for the destruction of your precious temple. Well if you convert to christianity, you no longer need that no longer existing temple, the rebuilt temple to the Lord will be in your heart.

That was the Maccabbean Revolt. The Jews celebrate Channukah today because it was the miracle of the 8 nights of oil for the lamp. The reason the revolt failed is at that time because I don't think they had enough support and the Romans were just too big of a force to deal with. We look at history today with our perspectives and world-views without realizing that history was a time of live and let die. That was life for people back then.

I think throughout of all of history, the only time there was world peace was probably at the end of WWII. I can't think of any other time when there was peace on earth. The world went to war again in Korea and then Vietnam then onto the Falklands, at the same time the I.R.A, was waging war with the British, the Pakistanis and Indians were at war and then the Iraq/Iran war and the Afghanistan/Russian war.

I personally cannot think of any other time there was peace on earth when nations were not at war with each other. So history really does repeat itself over and over and over again. But to look at people back then with the standards we have today is pointless.

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Let me assure you I am not jesting.
Witchcraft is based on Hebrew letters, so this is just a sneaky way to get people demon possessed.

In that case, this post worries me somewhat.

First thing, "witchcraft" as far as I'm aware is not bound to any certain language or alphabet. There's 'witchcraft' involving enochian, latin, and a whole host of other languages.

Secondly, this seems to fly in the face of the fact that hebrew is the language spoken by Christ and others of his time and preceding him as well, in addition to being the language the torah was given to us by the father in.

By extension, this would also seem to implicate hebrew-speaking jewish believers in Christ...as we're taught quite clearly in the bible, it is our heart and intents that are read, and I personally don't believe one can be duped through linguistics into turning honest and intended worship of the father into something completely contrary to its clear goal.

Odd views you've got here, friend. I haven't had a chance to read through the entire thread as yet, but would you have a link to some information clarifying where exactly you're getting all this so I can get some background on your opinions here?

Jesus met a woman drawing water from a well of Samaria. He sent his disciples on and he sat down to talk to her telling her of all the things she had done in her life, including her marriages and the man she was with now was not her husband. The woman said she perceived he was a prophet then said the Mountain of Jacob is where her fathers said she should worship and then said to Jesus that the Jews say it is in Jerusalem where men ought to worship. Jesus said the time is come and now is when the Father seeks such as to worship Him in spirit and in truth and we do not have to worship in Samaria or Jerusalem.

The Father seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. That truth is not to make sure you have to say the name in a language you do not speak, but rather, that you worship Him as He is with His entirety that we as humans only know a little of Him. What we do know of Him, that is only what we are required to worship Him.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Jesus met a woman drawing water from a well of Samaria. He sent his disciples on and he sat down to talk to her telling her of all the things she had done in her life, including her marriages and the man she was with now was not her husband. The woman said she perceived he was a prophet then said the Mountain of Jacob is where her fathers said she should worship and then said to Jesus that the Jews say it is in Jerusalem where men ought to worship. Jesus said the time is come and now is when the Father seeks such as to worship Him in spirit and in truth and we do not have to worship in Samaria or Jerusalem.

I can get behind that statement, and i've read that scripture as well. Well said brother.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Highlander64

 

Ya'shuah or Ye'shuah is the same word as is pronounced by us as "joshua" and the name of our saviour is also seen as Yahoshuah or Yeho'shuah - the name means, "YHWH is salvation"

when the bible says there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved, this name is what is being referred to, not the name 'jesus'

All the ambiguity could have been eliminated by the New Testament writers just saying Joshua.

JMD, are you making trouble again?!

As an aside, for the Fundies, I want to ask, "Where in the Bible does it say that only questions and thoughts which are in the Bible are allowed to be discussed?"

Actually, I have wondered about the these long versions of transliterated Hebrew which do not, phonetically, match the Greek. To what end is this done?

And given that the tradition is that the Creation was spoken into existence... (by the Logos)...

I remember an interesting lecture on the mystical power of words, and especially of names.
* Moses demanding to know the Name of God is an early example implying the importance of this.
* One of the Ten Commandments is not to use the Name in vain.
* Casting out demons in the Name, Jesus.
* Baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
* "Whatever you ask in my Name..."

...and so on.

It just now occurs to me that the Angels seem to be cautious about allowing their name to be known.
* "...as commander of the army of the LORD (Name!), I have now come." but never saying "Michael"
* Another, a voice, declaring it is Gabriel speaking to Daniel, but Gabriel not giving his own name (Yet, in Luke, Gabriel does volunteer his name-- why the difference?).

So, if you are serious about the damnation due to using using any other name-- or intentionally mispronouncing the Name given, I submit that the cause of the intent is at issue. If the intent is to avoid using the power of the Name, then to what end?
* Is it to mislead others so as to deny others the power?
* Is it to guard against invoking the power out of thoughtless familiarity?
* Is it to claim for oneself something new and mystical for reasons unrelated to the love of God?

Intent matters.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


That's right on man I'm a Jew trying to blame Christ. You miss my earlier post where I said i used to be Christian Reformed? Now i don't know if I fall into any religious category. these different categories and religions are used to breed hate between cultures bred way back at the time Nero and even before. I think Christianity is a fabrication if anything I believe in God and that Jesus walked the easrth and taught about God, but Jesus was not god or 3 in 1 as Christians like to put it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

... Can't go much more into Hell than this Prison Planet...

Mr X-ULTRA-ENOCHkey... Jesus(HE-IS-US)... And the Sheeple go...

Wow, this is still going on?

I figured this thread debunked due to the fact that there is no biblical backing to the OP statement.


It is the OP's opinion and nothing more.

Originally posted by Headband7
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

That's right on man I'm a Jew trying to blame Christ. You miss my earlier post where I said i used to be Christian Reformed? Now i don't know if I fall into any religious category. these different categories and religions are used to breed hate between cultures bred way back at the time Nero and even before. I think Christianity is a fabrication if anything I believe in God and that Jesus walked the easrth and taught about God, but Jesus was not god or 3 in 1 as Christians like to put it.

Then it becomes a sticky situation when we read when Jesus asked Peter who Peter thought Jesus was. He did not say, "Oh you are Jesus the son of Mary", instead Peter said "Some say you are John and some say you are Elias" and Jesus then asked him again "Peter, who do YOU say that I am?" Peter finally responds with "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God". Jesus then calls him Cephas, and says "No man has revealed this to you. You are Cephas and upon this rock will I build my church". The church was not built on Peter, but the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

It was not the Catholic church Jesus built. That is a great misunderstanding for a lot of people. He already laid the foundation with Himself as the Cornerstone. It is not a tangible building, but a group of people united in the acknowledgment of Him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

If you were to read the thread, you would see someone claiming that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. It wasn't and it was written in Greek to be a universal message to the world. What we find today is the reclaiming of God by the people who claim to own the legacy of the Hebrews. And they do it through the Hebrew language. It is the paganization of Christianity by making it regional and attached to a regional god.

edit on 18-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

That right there is the confusing part. There are some that clam the New Testament was first written in Aramaic, some claim it was first written in Greek, and some claim it was first written in Latin. The four canonical gospels did not begin their lives as the gospels of "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John." Different groups of early Christians maintained their own oral traditions of [Jesus wisdom,] as writing was a very specialized skill in those times, and not every fellowship enjoyed the services of a Scribe. So, many traditions were in oral form.When written accounts of the teachings began to circulate, the independent groups would supplement them with their own traditions, each believing their own versions to be "the true Gospel."

First of all, realize that the New Testament is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books. Agreed upon by whom, you ask? Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin. At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little known Christian sects the Official State Religion if the Christians would just settle their differences. Apparently, Constantine didn't care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief, any belief, as long as they all agreed. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church. A STATE sanctioned Church now.

First Council of Nicaea

Second Council of Nicaea

why did anyone take this thread seriously? threads like this getting any attention is exactly why ats seems to be going down the drain, at least in my opinion. this is such a pointless thread that somehow gets more replies than a credible, deservable topic. this thread is literally based on semantics, and these dang religious threads could stand to be made far less often.
no matter, his real name is flying spaghetti monster and if you call him anything else then you rightly deserve no sky cake with angel people, bc of course that is the criteria for heaven bound meat bags. /end mini rant

This has to be a troll thread. No one is that dumb.
Jesus was never called "Jesus" until more than 1000 years after his death.
If anything the people calling him "Jesus" are going to hell.