God Rebukes Lady Who Knows His True Hebrew Name For Continuing To Use The J Name?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I didn't say "translating", I said transliterating. They are two totally different terms.

That presupposes that he had an Aramaic name.
What I am saying is just because someone is a Jew, it doesn't mean they automatically have an Aramaic name.
Aramaic is a regional dialect and most Jews were not of that region so would not have a name in Aramaic.
What you are doing is perpetuating a theory that he did, when most likely he did not.
The Bible says he had the same name as Joshua in the old testament, which was most commonly read in the Greek version, since most Jews Spoke Greek.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I stand corrected. I mis-remembered something. However, Matthew 1:21-23 says:

"She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. All of this took place to fulfill what the Lord said through the prophet: behold, a virgin shall be with child, and they shall name him Emmanuel.'"

Emmanuel means "God with us," and Jesus means "the Lord saves," These are two different names.

"All of this took place," meaning not just the virgin birth, but also the naming of the child was part of the prophecy. if they named him Jesus, then they didn't fulfill that part of the prophecy.

Since I think that child was the Messiah, I hold that his name is Emmanuel.

reply to post by jmdewey60


The Hebrew for Joshua is Yehoshua, the Aramaic would be Yeshua, or Yeshu for short. Elijah is Eliyahu in Aramaic.

reply to post by Snsoc

Since I think that child was the Messiah, I hold that his name is Emmanuel.

Sort of a reverse logic employed it seems to me.
The prophecy relates in a figurative way only.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The Hebrew for Joshua is Yehoshua, the Aramaic would be Yeshua, or Yeshu for short. Elijah is Eliyahu in Aramaic.

So?
Hellenized Jews would have used none of those, nor would they name their child one of those.
The OP demonstrates the hideous mental problems resulting from the support of the Aramaic name theory.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Snsoc

 

Since I think that child was the Messiah, I hold that his name is Emmanuel.

Sort of a reverse logic employed it seems to me.
The prophecy relates in a figurative way only.

You're right on both counts. It is reverse logic, because otherwise we have a problem with a Messianic prophecy not being fulfilled. Since I think He demonstrated in other ways that He was the Messiah, the fact that this seems to be unfulfilled prophecy only points to the questionable nature of the written text.

If prophecy is fulfilled in a figurative, not literal way, we need to rethink the whole approach of "proving" Christ to non-believers by showing how he fulfilled prophecy.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Hebrew for Joshua is Yehoshua, the Aramaic would be Yeshua, or Yeshu for short. Elijah is Eliyahu in Aramaic.

So?
Hellenized Jews would have used none of those, nor would they name their child one of those.
The OP demonstrates the hideous mental problems resulting from the support of the Aramaic name theory.[edi

Why would Christ's brothers have Hebrew names and not Him if what you say is true? (James and Judah). Did Mary and Joseph decide to abandon Greek names after Christ's birth?

reply to post by Snsoc

If prophecy is fulfilled in a figurative, not literal way, we need to rethink the whole approach of "proving" Christ to non-believers by showing how he fulfilled prophecy.

All that was for the benefit of the Jews and is irrelevant now.
Whatever Jews were going to accept Christianity did so way back then, and now there are new Jews who replaced them, who became Jews after Christianity came around so will never accept "proofs".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Why would Christ's brothers have Hebrew names and not Him if what you say is true? (James and Judah). Did Mary and Joseph decide to abandon Greek names after Christ's birth?

How are James and Judah Hebrew and Jesus not?
I think you have been listing to too many cult videos.

Personally I am not buying this story because anyone who knows the True Name and insists on referring to Him as JC are those He said "get away from Me". I do not personally think for one minute that He would respect or feel the need to speak out to this one who purposely chooses to turn her back on Ha Shem (The Name). If she did not know the Name then I would be able to swallow this a bit more....

All that was for the benefit of the Jews and is irrelevant now.
Whatever Jews were going to accept Christianity did so way back then, and now there are new Jews who replaced them, who became Jews after Christianity came around so will never accept "proofs".

Well, someone needs to tell that to Lee "Case for Christ" Strobel and Josh "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" McDowell. Those guys have built careers on trying to win people to Christ with logic, and they use the "Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies" quite extensively.

If God saves some people because of intellectual assent based on proof, that's His business, not mine. Praise the Lord, they got in. But somehow or another, attempts to prove the Bible with evidence always develop holes, and I think we should keep it a matter of faith.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Why would Christ's brothers have Hebrew names and not Him if what you say is true? (James and Judah). Did Mary and Joseph decide to abandon Greek names after Christ's birth?

How are James and Judah Hebrew and Jesus not?
I think you have been listing to too many cult videos.

James (Yaakov) and Judah (Yehuda) are Hebrew names. Iesous is Greek, Jesus is Latinized. The Hebrew name for Joshua is Yehoshua.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Iesous is Greek

It is the Hebrew name Joshua, written in Greek,
Just like James and Judah are Hebrew names,
written in Greek.
I keep telling you, and you claim to know Greek better than I do somehow, take a look at the Septuagint in Greek and tell me how they spell Joshua. You of course just ignore it so you can pretend ignorance and feel ok just going along with whatever is the latest popular propaganda.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Iesous is Greek

It is the Hebrew name Joshua, written in Greek,
Just like James and Judah are Hebrew names,
written in Greek.
I keep telling you, and you claim to know Greek better than I do somehow, take a look at the Septuagint in Greek and tell me how they spell Joshua. You of course just ignore it so you can pretend ignorance and feel ok just going along with whatever is the latest popular propaganda.

Yaakov, Yehudah, Yehoshua are Hebrew names. What you see in your Bible, (James, Judah, Jesus) are Latinized translations of the Hebrew names. Now, address my question. Why would Mary and Joseph give Christ's half-brothers Hebrew names but not Jesus a Hebrew name, but only a Greek name as you alleged? I'm not ignoring anything, I know what the LXX translates for Joshua. I've said numerous times in the past that Jesus's name in English should be Joshua.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Jesus is no less Hebrew than James or Judas.

You already just said Jesus = Joshua, so how is all of a sudden Jesus a Greek name?.

If you really want someone to believe your line, show the Greek source for the name Jesus that does not come directly from the Old Testament, or other Jews named also from that same old testament character.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus is no less Hebrew than James or Judas.

You already just said Jesus = Joshua, so how is all of a sudden Jesus a Greek name?..

Let me try to explain what NotUrtypical is getting at;
Is "Moscow" a Russian name or an English name?
You could say either, because that's not the way the Russians pronounce or spell it. A name which was originally Russian has been re-modelled to suit English-speaking lips.
Simllarly "Londres" is the name of an English city re-modelled to suit French lips.
That's exactly what we've got in the New Testament. All the New Testament forms of the names we anglicise as "John", "James", "Judas", "Jesus" are based on Hebrew/Aramaic forms, but re-modelled to suit Greek-speaking lips, just as they have since been re-modelled twice over to suit Latin and English-speaking lips.
They are Hebrew/Aramaic names in Greek form, just as "Peking" is a Chinese name in English form.

As for the language which was actually spoken by Jesus, this is discussed in the very first section of "New Testament Theology" by Joachim Jeremias. It is called "The Aramaic basis of the LOGIA of Jesus", which gives away his answer to the question. The evidence includes a number of Aramaic words and phrases embedded in the gospel accounts, like TALITHA KOUM (Mark ch5 v41) and ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI (Matthew ch27 v46).

Anyway, I think the three of us agree on the central point at issue in this thread, that the exact pronuciation of the name is not of the essence of the Christian faith (if it had been , someone would have said so in the New Testament instead of waiting until now).

reply to post by DISRAELI


The problem in the minds of people pushing the "real" name of Jesus is not between English and Greek, but Greek and Aramaic, which by the way is no more "Hebrew" than Greek.
To me it is a war on Christianity, starting by undermining the authority of the New Testament by portraying the Greek language as being intrinsically evil.
How the Syrian dialect of Aramaic is somehow "holy" is beyond me.

As for the language which was actually spoken by Jesus, this is discussed in the very first section of . . .

It doesn't matter what one author thinks because there is not one position that represents a clear majority view.
As research progresses on the subject the trend is towards Jesus preaching in Greek.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The problem in the minds of people pushing the "real" name of Jesus is not between English and Greek, but Greek and Aramaic...

Yes, yes, I know. I was using these examples of changes into and out of English forms as an analogy for the relationship between the Aramaic and Greek forms of the same basic word. I was hoping that using an analogy would make things easier to understand.

The irony is that all three of us, as far as I can tell, unite in disagreeing with the "Only the Aramaic form is valid" premise of the OP. The disagreement is about why the premise is wrong. If you're not careful, you'll be giving support to the opposite extreme, the "Only the 'Jesus' form is valid" fanatics., because you suggest that's the form the man would have used himself. That line is unnecessary.
I think "Yes, it's been changed from one form to another, but it doesn't matter" is a much sounder way of disposing of the OP.

reply to post by DISRAELI

I was using these examples of changes into and out of English forms as an analogy for the relationship between the Aramaic and Greek forms of the same basic word. I was hoping that using an analogy would make things easier to understand.

Any criticism I was expressing was not towards what you were writing.
That's fine and I hope people will listen to rationality rather than hocus pocus.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

If you're not careful, you'll be giving support to the opposite extreme, the "Only the 'Jesus' form is valid" fanatics., because you suggest that's the form the man would have used himself.

Actually, the name Jesus is very similar in sound in Hebrew, Greek, and English. Hebrew = Yeshas (the "y" and "e" together gives the "y" a "j" sound), Greek = Iesous (the"I" and "e" together gives the "I" a "j" sound).