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

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I asked you for an example of the "J" or phonetic equivalent in Greek.

And I failed to provide one. So what do you propose?

1) That I never write the name Jesus?
2) That strange Hebrew constructions that are incomprehensible to English speakers are as legit for Christianity as English?
3) neither ( please specify )
4) both 1 and 2

reply to post by pthena


My point was, you basically have nothing to support this statement:

Unless I'm mistaken, the name John is an original Greek name. The whole question of Zechariah naming his son John as commanded by an angel seems significant. LK 1:13 even though no previous family member had such a name. Then this same angel tells Mary to name her son Jesus LK 1:31. If this angel spoke a Greek name in the first case, couldn't he also speak Greek in the second?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I asked you for an example of the "J" or phonetic equivalent in Greek.

The equivalency in a very general way is something I was looking at in the Ethiopian version of Jesus, where they indicate stops. Stops are a part of vocalizing words, and a J is one of the methods of making a stop, which is you press the tip of the tunge against the palate ridge behind your front teeth, to stop the air flow. In the Ethiopian, the J, if it was a J, would serve as the stop at the beginning of the word, with a tiny bit of a a vowel sound to make it any sort of sound. That in the Ethiopian is followed by another stop with more of a long A sound. You end up with a short "ju" as in the beginning of "jump", followed by "Ah" as if someone just grabbed one of your bags of groceries while you were loading your car in the store parking lot, where if you were calm, you would just say, Hey. That is followed by a long E, as in, eat, where the Ah served as the full stop after the previous stop. Then the rest follows, which again, in the Ethiopian, is, soos. So you have a complex double stop before the long E sound, which was not a natural thing for western Europeans there they would use a Y or J and have done with it. Seems that when Christianity came to Britain, the Y would have created a distraction for another word already in use (back then but not used in recent times), so it seems to me that they just did an interpretation where the J seemed good enough to them.
If none of this makes you feel better, then I don't know how to do that, it is just the things I have run across while looking at how different languages and cultures deal with this, to them, foreign (if you are not already Greek) name.

reply to post by jmdewey60
I've been thinking alot lately about one of the questions that you've been working on for a while: "Who exactly were the political opponents of Jesus, and why did they decide he must die?" This discussion of languages does have some bearing.

1) The Judeans who returned to Judea under Cyrus' decree did not refer to themselves as "returned" but as "remnant" in Ezra and the post exile minor prophets; as if they had never left the land.

2) The Judeans and others who had no interest in returning became the Jews (Esther). People of every nationality in Persian Empire converted and also became Jews (Esther).

3) Judea became Hellenized under the various post Alexander the Great days. That is, Judeans spoke Greek.

4) The Jews meanwhile under Parthian Empire "(247 BC – 224 AD), also known as the Arsacid Empire (Modern Persian: اشکانیان Ashkāniān)," Wikipedia , spoke Aramaic. Notice also the word 'Ashkanaian' as in Ashkenazi Jews.

Notice that I make a distinction between Judean and Jew. At the time of Jesus, the Judeans spoke Greek, and the Jews, Ashkenazi, spoke Aramaic. For some reason, the Ashkenazi were moving into Judea and taking it over. The Ashkenazi then convinced Judeans to convert to Jewishness (Ashkenazi religion) and speak Aramaic instead of Greek, under the pretense that Aramaic was more holy than Greek. Thus the Judeans were subverted by the Jews and for all practical purposes ceased to exist.

5) Prior to Herod the Great, Roman fights against Parthians included Judean fighters. It may be assumed that Parthians included Jews as fighters. Thus Judeans fighting Jews.

6) Jesus said harsh things concerning Jews. There is that dialogue in John where they actually deny the Israelite myth of having been slaves. Perhaps the 'father' of the Jews is Mordicai from book of Esther.

7) If Jesus was an insurgent fighter, it wasn't against the Romans but against the Ashkenazi Jews who had taken over Judean life. The only person hit by swords of followers of Jesus was a servant of the temple.

8) Under the persecution of Saul of Tarsus, under temple authority, it was the Hellenized believers of Jesus who were scattered, not the Apostles (according to Acts) who had no trouble staying in Jerusalem.

9) The possibility exists that the Apostles themselves quit using Greek so that they would be free to stay in Jerusalem. Paul had much problem from these "Apostles".

It's a sad thing to admit: Jesus failed to save the Judeans from being swallowed up by the Ashkenazi Jews. Jesus failed to reconstitute the twelve tribes. Israel is gone. The Jews are a self appointed substitute for Israel.

These Jews, with no natural connection to the land, claim it. That's fraud.

reply to post by pthena
I was just looking at this verse earlier today and reading your post made me think of it.
John 12
Now some Greeks were among those who had gone up to worship at the feast. So these approached Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew, and they both went and told Jesus. Jesus replied, “The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it produces much grain. The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
“Now my soul is greatly distressed. And what should I say? ‘Father, deliver me from this hour’? No, but for this very reason I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” The crowd that stood there and heard the voice said that it had thundered. Others said that an angel had spoken to him. Jesus said, “This voice has not come for my benefit but for yours. Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (Now he said this to indicate clearly what kind of death he was going to die.)

One big, long quote but it raises a few questions in the light of your points, such as:
Where were the majority of Jesus' disciples when he was at places like Solomon's Porch, which was in the inner sanctum, so to speak, for people who were not temple priests.
Why is it important that Philip was from Bethsaida?
Who are "the Greeks"? Church would have us believe these were just ordinary gentiles who had an interest in the God of the temple. Could they actually be Judains who only spoke Greek, in contrast with the "Scribes and Pharisees", who by their jobs had to speak the "holy" tongue?
Why did Jesus find the mention of the "Greeks" a good time to bring up something which sounded like war?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Church would have us believe these were just ordinary gentiles who had an interest in the God of the temple. Could they actually be Judains who only spoke Greek, in contrast with the "Scribes and Pharisees", who by their jobs had to speak the "holy" tongue?
Why did Jesus find the mention of the "Greeks" a good time to bring up something which sounded like war?

The Church goes by the later Zechariah (which I place as 8-14) vs 8:22 "and many peoples and powerful nations will come to Jerusalem to seek Yahweh Almighty..."

Zechariah
8:23 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: “In those days, ten men will take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, they will take hold of the skirt of him who is a Jew, saying, ‘We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”
. . .
9:13 For indeed I bend Judah as a bow for me.
I have filled the bow with Ephraim;
and I will stir up your sons, Zion,
against your sons, Greece,
and will make you like the sword of a mighty man.

The later Zechariah introduces a lot of messianic material including the donkey ride into the city, 9:9 all associated together by Gospel writers and editors in the last week. But here's the fly in the ointment:

The donkey ride of Zech 9:9 was supposed to be the sign of the invincibility of Jerusalem "9:8 I will encamp around my house against the army, that none pass through or return; and no oppressor will pass through them any more"

Where were the majority of Jesus' disciples when he was at places like Solomon's Porch, which was in the inner sanctum, so to speak, for people who were not temple priests.

Jesus and at least one of his disciples were most likely related to Caiaphas at least through the marriage of Joseph bar Caiaphas (possibly Joseph of Arimathea) to the daughter of Annas. Peter (called Cephas, short for Caiaphas) was at least allowed to come close.

It kind of sucks that Caiaphas handed his own relative over to be killed, then claimed the body afterward.

Jesus retaliated the only way he could, by attempting to destroy the whole messianic scheme: John 12:31 "Now is the judgment of this world. Now the prince of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”" 33 But he said this, signifying by what kind of death he should die."

It would be in keeping with the general thesis of Gospel of John 1

11 He came to his own, and those who were his own didn’t receive him. 12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

to conclude that Jesus meant the whole messiah as ruler of the world concept as 'prince of this world' that was being cast out. Henceforth, Son of god(Davidic ruler) to be superseded by son of man (representative of the people, not Jews, but all people everywhere).

I don't know if this addressed all the questions.

reply to post by pthena

I don't know if this addressed all the questions.

I was just throwing out examples of what immediately may come to mind, reading those verses, right after reading your post from yesterday. The idea of my post was that it all of a sudden makes you question the little pat answers we are given as children, and maybe it is time to grow up and face the reality of this thing turning the world up side down in opposition to the mission and message of Jesus. The serpent is thrashing in its death throws to take as many with him as possible.

I ran into an interesting paragraph today while reading up on Revelation on Wikipedia that I think fits this topic.

Some have argued that the author originally wrote Apocalypse in Aramaic and was later translated into common Koine Greek. However, due to evidence of semitic words and phrases used throughout the book, it stands to reason that Revelation is good “Jewish Greek” used in first century Palestine. Though not proven, it may explain the numerous grammatical imperfections of the text.

Text Reconstruction
Jewish Greek in First Century Palestine, hmm.

Here's another bit of information I ran across that is useful to the topic of this thread.

The Language Milieu of Palestine Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek were in use in Palestine in the first century CE. But how commonplace each of these languages was is debated. An increasing number of scholars argue that Greek was the primary language spoken in Palestine in the time of, and perhaps even in the ministry of Jesus. Though still a minority opinion, this view has much to commend it and is gaining adherents.

Wallace, Daniel B. (2009-05-11). The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar. Zondervan (Kindle Locations 269-272).

So here is the writer of the main reference work used, quoted, and cited as being authoritative in the field, and the most used as a college textbook for NT Greek, saying in so many words, that it seems likely Jesus taught and preached, in the Greek language as it was used in that time and place.

I need to be more careful to transfer any find I run across on this topic, onto this thread, so I missed a couple, while surfing the web and can't exactly get back there.
Here is something I have had at home and did not seem especially significant when I first read it. It is in a fairly popular book by a fairly popular author. The has passed away now, but was until recently one of the most respected New Testament scholars. The book is, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek by Bruce M. Metzger.
He has a chart on the transliteration of Greek letters and for Ι or ι, when at the beginning of a word and followed by a vowel, is pronounced j, and he gives the examples of, jot, and Jesus.

wow, I am on pg 5 after being directed here by the guy who has condemned me to hell from another thread.
I have to add I recieved no love, no counsel, no scriptural support with his condemnation. And what was my crime? I was using nothing but scripture addressing a Bible bashing thread where I saw this author condemning other Christians to hell. So I responded using no philosophy but scripture, the same he uses.
My crime?
I used the Hebrew name for Savior in addressing our Lord
I used this name
The Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words English word: "Savior" 3467 (yâsha) Hebrew word: 3467 "yâsha" (yaw-shah)

“Yasha”


in Hebrew means

to save, be saved, be delivered
to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
to be saved (in battle), be victorious
to save, deliver
to save from moral troubles
to give victory to

Yashayah

And I was reproved publicaly as demon posessed and fast tracked to Hell.
And he used no scripture to rebuke or reprove, just condemnation.
Now I am no scholar, just a seeker of truth.
I love it when I am reproved in the Word by someone who loves me into right relationship in fellowship.
None of that here.

So, where is my sin? How am I flawed?
I even explained I have no problem using the name Jesus in public for those that are unaware or ignorant to scripture because I know Yah reads hearts. I stated this, but more condemnation.
Where am I transgressing?

If I have a demon how can I seek only to honor Him? My intention is clearly to glorify the Savior and none other.
My intentions are clear in what my heart recognizes in what the name means. I seek not to glorify another but my Father in Heaven and His only Begotten Son.
I know full well that as a believer in Him I am held to a high standard to others of faith and can be reproved where needed and that we are not to judge those that are non believers but are the fruit inspectors that share in the faith. So please by all means reprove and rebuke.
But that isn't the case with the op.
I am condemned with malice and intent to hell because I am accused of being demon posessed and driven.
Because I sought to honor the Savior using what my heart believes to be the name that describes who He is in Hebrew. I will say it clearly.
I use the name to claim that He is the Savior.
Not that he will be but is the Risen Lord who died for my sins and in His blood I am cleansed and made whole.
I know of no other to whom I can pray and honor.
To me the name implies He is the great I AM, He is I AM Savior. Yasha-yah. So, who am I glorifying here? To whom do I give praise and thanks?

reply to post by manna2
I could tell you the same thing I told a lot of other people, I do not have the power to condemn anyone to Hell, nor would I like to have such power. What I am doing is warning people who have been duped into renouncing their religion by the sophistries of people who care nothing of Jesus but are promoting an Old Testament style Yahweh worship which is not supported by the New Testament.
Jesus showed us in the Gospel of John that if there was an I Am, and if people were convinced somehow that they need to be devoted to an I Am, then they need look no further.
Jesus is the Salvation of God at Work. In other words, whatever this person was who was called YHWH in the Old Testament, that role has now been taken over by one who is higher than an angel, even if we knew him as a man, because he was with God in Heaven before he came as a man and was intimate with God to the point that God considered him His own son.
We do not have an intermediary between man and God, at this point, as explained by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I would take this to mean that there is no longer angels like there were in the past who were the administrators of the Old Covenant (also explained in the New Testament). The new covenant is not just newer, but is better. We have a superior administrator of this covenant who is at the same time our brother, and one of us, and is in the role of the god of this covenant, being not just the priest before the throne of god represented by the ark, or mercy seat, but is that throne, or place of coming for justification, itself, also explained by Paul.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by MaMaa

 

Too bad you understood what I said, backwards. God is not the one with the problem, it is us who are vulnerable to being side tracked into believing someone else is God, someone who has only the power to kill us but no power to save us.

so I see way back here you began the contradictions to support your condemning and accusing of the brethren.
I used the name "Savior" and you cursed me to hell for it.
My you came a long way in 35 pages. I have to wonder if you are aware of your own trangressions. You spend all your time first accusing without knowledge and then justifying yourself at the expense of His own. Your heart is exposed for sure for sure.
I admit, you upset me with your blanket accusations and yes, you are doing the work of the accuser.

reply to post by manna2


Don't get too down on yourself, most Christians realize they serve a Jewish King. Yes, His Hebrew name is Yashua.

reply to post by manna2

I used the name "Savior" and you cursed me to hell for it.

When did I do that?
I said you invented your own religion which I am OK with, as long as you do not deceive others by passing it off as Christianity, since your religion is by definition anti-christ by presenting another Christ than the one of the New Testament.
Somehow you take that and turn it into "curses". I think you are overreacting a bit towards me who is only presenting a message of warning to avoid false Christs which we were warned about by Jesus himself.
Anyway, what is this knowledge you say I have none of?
Did you go out into the desert, or in the secret room to find your Christ?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . most Christians realize they serve a Jewish King.

To use one of your favorite lines, Do you have a verse for that?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The Spanish pronunciation may be closer to the Greek than the English pronunciation.
You have a good argument about the Chinese. My point would be, lets say you have people go to China and say, "Sorry, but you need to say the Hebrew word because God is the person Moses talked to who was in the burning bush."

And yet it makes sense that no matter what language you use if you approach Him from the Hebrew there is no dilemna.
Again, He reads hearts not lips.
It's the audience you are talking to that matters.
But as a default, Hebrew is so much more descriptive as the name means what it is meant to mean.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . most Christians realize they serve a Jewish King.

To use one of your favorite lines, Do you have a verse for that?

Awww, well, since you've pulled out my favorite reply to your posts, likewise, I'll respond in the typical manner that you do when faced with the same request:



*crickets*


Are you mad that you've burned up 35 pages of bandwith and convinced no one??

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?

My bible says don't judge others. Love your neighbor and your enemy. If you condemn anyone to hell you have judged them and have not loved them.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . most Christians realize they serve a Jewish King.

To use one of your favorite lines, Do you have a verse for that?

Awww, well, since you've pulled out my favorite reply to your posts, likewise, I'll respond in the typical manner that you do when faced with the same request:

*crickets*

Are you mad that you've burned up 35 pages of bandwith and convinced no one??

So you are admitting that you can not comply with the standards you hold others to.
And that you just make things up out of your imagination in order to present it as false evidence to belittle others who you do not agree with.
I don't post on this forum to get people to agree with me. Chronic posters are not going to change their minds so I care nothing about the accusations against me because all it does is reinforce my point which is truly godly people do not fight God by changing the name of His son in order to feel special that they have secret knowledge only smart people can appreciate.