Baptiized in the Name or the Titles, Does it Matter?
- Thread starter iamaberean
- Start date
keypurr
Well-known member
keypurr
Well-known member
iamaberean
New member
Here are the things we know.
1. Angels would not have spoken to Mary in Greek.
2. Mary named her son as the Angel had told her.
3. That name would have been in Hebrew.
4. That name is 'Yehsua'.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
5. The translators of the Bible had no reason or right to change the name that God had given to his son.
1. Angels would not have spoken to Mary in Greek.
2. Mary named her son as the Angel had told her.
3. That name would have been in Hebrew.
4. That name is 'Yehsua'.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
5. The translators of the Bible had no reason or right to change the name that God had given to his son.
TweetyBird
New member
There is absolutely zero evidence that the NT was "originally" written in Aramaic.
keypurr
Well-known member
TweetyBird
New member
Why not? The Angels spoke in whatever language God told them to.
The Name recorded is IESOUS. If it was all that important, the writers of the NT would have indicated that is was necessary to know His Hebrew Name. Greek was the common language for the Jews in the first century, as was Hebrew and Aramaic. Some Jews, like Paul, also knew Latin. The sign above Jesus was written in Greek, Hebrew and Latin.
His Name is written in the NT the way that God intended. He was also probably called IESOUS [Greek] and IESUS [Latin].
His Hebrew Name was more than likely Yeshua - not Yehsua.
They didn't. IESOUS is His Name in Greek. No one changed His Name. The Greek speakers could not pronounce Yehsua - which I have already explained previously. You are ignoring the facts in favor of your hyper sensationalized view. It's not a sin to call IESOUS or to call Him Jesus. Both of those names are transliterations of Yeshua.
TweetyBird
New member
You can disagree all you want. There is zero evidence of an Aramaic NT from the first century. If you are appealing to the Peshitta - it was translated from the Greek.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Ummm... yeah it does occur in Hebrew. H3091 is the Strong's number.
Or maybe it's your Greek that's the problem?
I (iota) corresponds to Yowd
E (heta) corresponds to Hay
S (sigma) corresponds to Shin
O (o micron) corresponds to Vav
The final Ayin is dropped and -US is added in its place to comply with Greek grammar and because there is no letter equivalent to Ayin in Greek.
iamaberean
New member
Believing that a language that can not translate Hebrew correctly does not lead to credibility. Mary was of the linage of David and of course they would have spoke Hebrew.
God spoke to Paul in the Hebrew language (Act 26:14), why would an Angel not speak to Mary in Hebrew?
I don't know exactly how one might translate that, but it would not be Jesus.
His Hebrew Name was more than likely Yeshua - not Yehsua.
I have seen it spelled both ways.
Just because the Greeks could not pronounce it, doesn't make it correct. We have come a long ways in knowing and interpreting Hebrew and we should read the bible from the translation of the Hebrew language.
I know the new testament has no Hebrew to translate but we are able to relate much of the new to the old. It is not about right or wrong, but about understanding. The first understanding is that there were still people speaking Hebrew at the time of Christ.
Last edited:
The irony of Greek tongues not able to pronounce the name should not be lost...
What the Greeks/Romans etc did to make "the Way" more appealing to pagan Europeans was to change more than just the name...
Remember it was success of humans doing anything they wanted (Babylon) which caused Yah to disrupt the languages...
Coders should appreciate these details as passwords are even case sensitive...
Lol...I can't access my junk mail without the right password but I can obtain eternal salvation from any name I choose...lol
Jots and tittles matter and remain...
After Babylon some still seek Him and not just to reach the heavens...
They wish to better know and understand Him...not build a massive and impressive tower of man's traditions...
Last edited:
TweetyBird
New member
What is your source of an "original" Aramaic NT?
TweetyBird
New member
I never said anything about translating. Jesus is not a translation of Yeshua. I said the GREEKS could not pronounce Yeshua. I did not say that Mary did not know Hebrew.
I didn't say that the Angel didn't speak to her in Hebrew. I said that it is recorded that He spoke the Name IESOUS. We have no writing that states His Name is Yeshua, but I am not saying it wasn't or that He was not called Yeshua or Iesous or Iesus. They are all the same name.
Iesous is not a translation of Yeshua.
Haha - not by Hebrew speakers. But there are like over 50 pronunciations of Yeshua created by wanna be Hebrew enthusiasts who are pseudo Hebrew Scholars.
The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew. There is not one text in the Bible that states one has to have the correct spelling and pronunciation of the Savior's Name.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a correct Name to address the Savior.
Why are you using "Christ" - that is not Hebrew either, it's GREEK. You are just hilarious :rotfl:
keypurr
Well-known member
the Greeks which the original gospel/letters were first written to most certainly could pronounce Hebrew as they were Jews duh...some might have actually known Him...certainly heard of Him outside the letter they were reading which had His name in Greek in it...
It was centuries later people forgot oh yeah He was Jewish and kept "Jewish" Law and culture and tradition and instructed believers to do likewise...
Centuries later so much else was introduced into this new religion that by design and intent the wall that was removed in Him was rebuilt and there were again Greeks and Jews...and now Romans too
Don Quixote and Don Quijote are also the same name...one spelling is how the author wrote it the other is not...and it matters only to a few...those who know it matters
reason enough to restore the original... you know, to worship more in truth and spirit
what are you enthusiastic about? Retaining man's tradition?
of the originals that survived or we are privy of...we had to protest and kill to be able to read English bibles at all...
even those that first read those originals never dreamed people would ever forget His name...their creator and savior
Especially those that met Him...they knew His true name no matter how many times or ways it is translated...
my family spoke German but gave me the legal name of John...(not easy being German in America...you know, the war and allegations)...but we in the family all know I am Hans...and going back to visit my people they laugh when I say I am John...but understand why
Same with His name among His people...living in diaspora...every time they heard His name in a Greek translation they repeated it to themselves in their own tongue...they knew how to say it...
sure it does as you wish to minimize what it meant for the early church to be and act as Jews...so much so that even centuries later Christians were still persecuted by Rome as a superstitious Jewish sect...
Good point...it's not like Christ is His last name...
and being the messiah certainly affirms more than just being the anointed one...but now we are beyond reformation and have gone to restoration...and that makes Christians uncomfortable
Christians...hmmmm...I believe He wished we worship our Father not Him...being Christians often ignores the greater context
I like "follower of the Way"...
Last edited:
TweetyBird
New member
"Yahushua" is not a Hebrew Name. That is the name I was referring to. I know Iesous is a transliteration of Yeshua. I was not disagreeing with that at all. Perhaps you should pay attention to the succession of posts.
TweetyBird
New member
TweetyBird
New member
The Greek language was just not spoken by the writers of the NT. They could have easily written in the name of Yeshua, just like the Aramaic and Hebrew words translated within the text. You are not paying attention to what I have posted. I already stated the disciples called Him Yeshua, IESOUS and IESUS.
The second century Christians, including those who learned from the apostles were not keeping the Mosaic law nor were they interested in Jewish culture. They were preaching the Gospel and being persecuted and martyred for it.
The NT clearly shows there was a new religion being taught by the apostles and writers of the NT. The Jewish religion was the old covenant, replaced by the new covenant.
And when did he become the Savior that I should care about that? What a ridiculous argument.
There is no "original" to restore. The Text shows that Jesus was called both Yeshua and IESOUS in the first century.
It looks like that is actually your current job and career.
Never said it was. It's interesting however, that the Gospels made a big deal out of calling Him Christ aka Christos and not Ha Mashiyach.
The greater context is Christ crucified, not all this sacred name promotion of the "true name". It's just hogwash, really it is.
You are sounding more and more like a Hebrew Roots enthusiast. James Trimm comes to mind.