Baptiized in the Name or the Titles, Does it Matter?

[keypurr]

That link goes no where.

What is the source of Roth's AENT?

Spend the forty bucks and see for yourself. The notes alone are priceless.

Eastern church has oldest manuscripts available to us. Well worth your consideration for comparson.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[TweetyBird]

Spend the forty bucks and see for yourself. The notes alone are priceless.



Eastern church has oldest manuscripts available to us. Well worth your consideration for comparson.

You are not being very honest. Roth relied on the Peshitta.

 

[clefty]

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.

Ok well this discussion is over...His name is not Jesus...Yeshua is preferred...but is what English speakers who follow tradition since about 1700

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.

if they had just made a clean break from judiasm there would have been no issue...it was because they continued to claim being Jewish and preaching a risen messiah that rankled those Jews who wished to define by their own traditions what God and worship and all that was...

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.

christened pun included by a toast to a room full of Jews...this new covenant was signed and sealed at His death...nothing added after yes?...

So there it is...Live and Love JUST AS He did...not as you misuse Paul to twist and distort a new way, another gospel of the new covenant...just like Jewish false witness and slanderers did during Paul's time you allege changes were made...

Typical Pharisee...lol

And when did he become the Savior that I should care about that? What a ridiculous argument.

you really are desperate and in damage control...never claimed a Spanish writer was the savior merely showed that a Spanish writer would name a name differently than an English one...duh...

Relax twittybird...take a rest...no need for feathers flying everywhere...

There is no "original" to restore. The Text shows that Jesus was called both Yeshua and IESOUS in the first century.

already here on TOL you include and allow Yeshua and are further restored than your initial tweet

It looks like that is actually your current job and career.

lol...

Yeshua doesn't like false witnessing...

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.

you don't have the original writing...no one does...just copies maybe the writers did insert Hebrew names and titles...but the Greek Jews knew better...but as subsequent copies were made in later centuries all that was made into Greek...poor guys couldn't even pronounce the name so they had to do something...

Satan using any willing and unknowing to counterfeit and lead astray...

The greater context is Christ crucified, not all this sacred name promotion of the "true name". It's just hogwash, really it is.

for salvation maybe...but not for better understanding of the place and time and culture and tradition...oh and of the Word itself...

I still come across Christians who forget or didn't know He was Jewish...some deny He ever was...

The desire of the Church to supplant its trunk and root is that deep...as if He didn't keep Sabbath and pray it be kept into the future time of troubles...

You are sounding more and more like a Hebrew Roots enthusiast. James Trimm comes to mind.

Rome has always persecuted the true believers as a superstitious Jewish cult or sect...

Boring...

 

[TweetyBird]

Ok well this discussion is over...His name is not Jesus...Yeshua is preferred...but is what English speakers who follow tradition since about 1700

IESOUS is preferred as that is the Name of Jesus used in the first century when the NT was written - used 943 times. Jesus is a transliteration of Yeshua as is IESOUS - they are same name as Yeshua.

if they had just made a clean break from judiasm there would have been no issue...it was because they continued to claim being Jewish and preaching a risen messiah that rankled those Jews who wished to define by their own traditions what God and worship and all that was...

Not the believing Jews. They were on board with Christ crucified.

already here on TOL you include and allow Yeshua and are further restored than your initial tweet

HUH?

you don't have the original writing...no one does...just copies maybe the writers did insert Hebrew names and titles...

No, they did not. There were over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT scattered over the Greek speaking world. There were no, none, zilch Hebrew names and titles inserted into the text that were not there to begin with.

but the Greek Jews knew better...but as subsequent copies were made in later centuries all that was made into Greek...poor guys couldn't even pronounce the name so they had to do something...

That is just wackadoodle conjecture.

Satan using any willing and unknowing to counterfeit and lead astray...

Jesus is not satan.

for salvation maybe...but not for better understanding of the place and time and culture and tradition...oh and of the Word itself...

The Bible is not cultural. Another one of those wacky ideas coming out of Hebrew Roots.

I still come across Christians who forget or didn't know He was Jewish...some deny He ever was...

Oh pahleese. What a lot of sensational hogwash.

The desire of the Church to supplant its trunk and root is that deep...as if He didn't keep Sabbath and pray it be kept into the future time of troubles...

What are you going on about now? I think you are confuseled.

Rome has always persecuted the true believers as a superstitious Jewish cult or sect...

Boring...

More conjecture that defies logic.

 

[Wick Stick]

"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.

First, Yehoshua IS a Hebrew name. It's also the name of a book of the Bible. It's usually rendered as Joshua. You can find it after Deuteronomy.

I literally spelled it out and you still don't get it. The Greek letter heta corresponds to Hebrew hay. It looks like a capital 'E' but it's pronounced 'hay' not 'eh.'

IESOUS is a transliteration of Yehoshua and Yeshua. Because they're the same name.

 

[TweetyBird]

First, Yehoshua IS a Hebrew name. It's also the name of a book of the Bible. It's usually rendered as Joshua. You can find it after Deuteronomy.

I literally spelled it out and you still don't get it. The Greek letter heta corresponds to Hebrew hay. It looks like a capital 'E' but it's pronounced 'hay' not 'eh.'

IESOUS is a transliteration of Yehoshua and Yeshua. Because they're the same name.

I never said that Yehoshua is not a Hebrew Name. You are not reading what I posted. yahshua/yahushua is NOT NOT NOT Hebrew. It is a non-name in Hebrew. The pronunciation of the theophoric element aka the "YH" is "YEH" or "YO" or "Yeho" as found in Yehoshua or Yonathan or Yeshua [the shortened form of Yehoshua]. Just as "yahweh" is NOT the Hebrew pronunciation for the YHWH.

 

[Wick Stick]

"Yahushua" is not a Hebrew Name.

I never said that Yehoshua is not a Hebrew Name. You are not reading what I posted. yahshua/yahushua is NOT NOT NOT Hebrew. It is a non-name in Hebrew. The pronunciation of the theophoric element aka the "YH" is "YEH" or "YO" or "Yeho" as found in Yehoshua or Yonathan or Yeshua [the shortened form of Yehoshua]. Just as "yahweh" is NOT the Hebrew pronunciation for the YHWH.

So... you're arguing over the vowel pointing? You know the vowel points didn't exist at the time it was written, right?

This is also another reason why the η in Ἰησοῦς should be read as a transliteration of the ה in יהושוע.

 

[Daniel1769]

What evidence do you have that "Jehoshua" was the name given to Jesus. The New Testament, in the original Greek, gives His name as Iesous. That's pronounce "Jesus" in English. Things are pronounced different ways in different countries. These assertions that Jesus's "real name" is Jehoshua, Yahshua, Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jahshua, and a host of other spellings that no one agrees on, is entirley fabricated. The authors of the Bible who walked with Jesus in the flesh, have His name as "Iesous." These other names are found nowhere in scripture and their alleged use is a complete invention of the "Hebrew roots" and other assorted Judaizers.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Water Baptism is no longer necessary in this "Dispensation of the Grace of God." There's only ONE Baptism and that's done when a person hears The Grace Gospel, responds in faith in Christ, and is baptized (not by water) into The Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Crucible]

Baptiized in the Name or the Titles, Does it Matter?

One should hold to the Trinity because that is simply the godhead of Christianity. There's the Father, Son, and Spirit- so why wouldn't a person be baptized in their name lain:

But I can see some could perceive it as churches basically 'strong arming' others into stating it at baptism- a lot of churches like to insert unnecessary things they do not need to be.

I doubt that any of the early Christians stated the 'titles' at baptism, or even after Christianity became the state religion for that matter.
In fact, I can almost guarantee that it was decreed by a pope much, much later

 

[TweetyBird]

So... you're arguing over the vowel pointing? You know the vowel points didn't exist at the time it was written, right?

This is also another reason why the η in Ἰησοῦς should be read as a transliteration of the ה in יהושוע.

No, I am not arguing over vowel pointings. Hebrew speakers do not pronounce Hebrew names that begin with "YH" with a "Yah" spelling or sound. All Hebrew speakers use the pointings to speak the language. That is how they read the Hebrew from right to left.

 

[Wick Stick]

No, I am not arguing over vowel pointings. Hebrew speakers do not pronounce Hebrew names that begin with "YH" with a "Yah" spelling or sound. All Hebrew speakers use the pointings to speak the language. That is how they read the Hebrew from right to left.

Vowel pointings for Hebrew didn't exist until hundreds of years after the New Testament ended. They were created by a group of Jews who wanted to re-interpret the Old Testament in an anti-Christian way.

Relying on them is a mistake.

 

[KingdomRose]

Jesus was born to Mary and most assuredly was Hebrew. As such she would have named her son in the Hebrew language. 'Jehoshua'. just as the angel instructed.

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

If my name was Harold in the USA it would still be that in any other country, because I am of an English speaking family. Why wouldn't the translators stick to the Hebrew word since there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved?

Pastors, theologians and UPC members , what is your response?

No, your name would not be the same in any country. For example, "Paul" is "Pablo" in Spain or Mexico and I've seen it in other spellings as well. It is pronounced like PAH-OOL in German. I'm sure "Harold" and your own name undergo the same changes.

Your objection doesn't make much sense. Whose will was it that the world must be saved by the name of Jesus/Jehoshua? Was it not his Father's will? What is the Father's name? Wouldn't it be even more important than Jesus' name? In fact, there is another Scripture that quotes a line from the O.T. book of Joel:

(Acts 2:16,17,21) "This is what was said through the prophet Joel, 'And in the last days,' God says, 'I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams;...And everyone who calls on the name of"---what does the original verse in the Hebrew language (in Joel) say?

"Everyone who calls on the name of JEHOVAH will get away safe." (Joel 2:28,32)


So, my point is, why are you so concerned about how Jesus' name is pronounced or spelled when you have no concern at all about the name of his Father and his God? (John 20:17)

Jesus said his God was the Father, Jehovah. That means that Jehovah calls the shots, He directs everything that His Son and His angels do. He is the One who tells us that we must call on the name of His Son for salvation, because Jesus is the means by which Jehovah saves. Would we ignore the One who told us to call on His Son? I am concerned that people do that.

 

[KingdomRose]

Scriptures say only one name can save you.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Scriptures say to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

There is no Scripture that say the Church of God baptized in the titles, Jesus said name of not names of.

WHO was it that said there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved? It was THE FATHER who said that. It's HIS BIBLE. (See Psalm 83:18, King James Version.) The Bible actually indicates that there are TWO names we must honor. Jehovah and Jesus. (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Acts 4:12)

Jehovah is the Almighty God and calls all the shots. Jesus is His Son and the means by which Jehovah saves.

 

[TweetyBird]

Vowel pointings for Hebrew didn't exist until hundreds of years after the New Testament ended. They were created by a group of Jews who wanted to re-interpret the Old Testament in an anti-Christian way.

Relying on them is a mistake.

It's the only Hebrew there is. So what are you going to rely on? And there are two separate mss - you are just promoting myths. The Jewish Scribes were faithful, being given the oracles by God Himself. Don't sell the Jewish people short on this - they considered the Scriptures Holy and preserved it to the best of their ability. They did not translate it, it's in Hebrew :think:. Why the anti-Semitism?

 

[TweetyBird]

No, your name would not be the same in any country. For example, "Paul" is "Pablo" in Spain or Mexico and I've seen it in other spellings as well. It is pronounced like PAH-OOL in German. I'm sure "Harold" and your own name undergo the same changes.

Your objection doesn't make much sense. Whose will was it that the world must be saved by the name of Jesus/Jehoshua? Was it not his Father's will? What is the Father's name? Wouldn't it be even more important than Jesus' name? In fact, there is another Scripture that quotes a line from the O.T. book of Joel:

(Acts 2:16,17,21) "This is what was said through the prophet Joel, 'And in the last days,' God says, 'I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams;...And everyone who calls on the name of"---what does the original verse in the Hebrew language (in Joel) say?

"Everyone who calls on the name of JEHOVAH will get away safe." (Joel 2:28,32)


So, my point is, why are you so concerned about how Jesus' name is pronounced or spelled when you have no concern at all about the name of his Father and his God? (John 20:17)

Jesus said his God was the Father, Jehovah. That means that Jehovah calls the shots, He directs everything that His Son and His angels do. He is the One who tells us that we must call on the name of His Son for salvation, because Jesus is the means by which Jehovah saves. Would we ignore the One who told us to call on His Son? I am concerned that people do that.

Jehovah is an educated guess. No one knows the pronunciation of the YHWH. Jesus said to call The Lord God Almighty, Father, just as He did. That is good enough for moi.

 

[clefty]

It's the only Hebrew there is. So what are you going to rely on? And there are two separate mss - you are just promoting myths. The Jewish Scribes were faithful, being given the oracles by God Himself. Don't sell the Jewish people short on this - they considered the Scriptures Holy and preserved it to the best of their ability. They did not translate it, it's in Hebrew :think:. Why the anti-Semitism?

If I remember correctly these guys were called snakes brood of vipers sons of Satan their father of lies...

The entire Old Testament testifies of their idolatry time and time again...

But you assume they kept the copies of scriptures error free?

Wow...

 

[TweetyBird]

If I remember correctly these guys were called snakes brood of vipers sons of Satan their father of lies...

The entire Old Testament testifies of their idolatry time and time again...

But you assume they kept the copies of scriptures error free?

Wow...

What other choice is there but the Masoretic manuscripts? How do you know the Mas is full of errors? You have nothing to compare it to :doh:. Either God preserved His Word or He did not. And if He didn't, all you have is a pile of words on a page that mean absolutely nothing.

ps: the Pharisees did not write the Hebrew text, they added their traditions to it. Funny thing, though, that if those "idolatrous wicked Jews" screwed everything up, then how come Jesus quoted from the Hebrew so often? Stop listening to your teachers who are misleading you with their anti-Jewish rhetoric.

 

[clefty]

What other choice is there but the Masoretic manuscripts? How do you know the Mas is full of errors? You have nothing to compare it to :doh:. Either God preserved His Word or He did not. And if He didn't, all you have is a pile of words on a page that mean absolutely nothing.

Oh the Word He certainly preserved...even with translation errors...

look what the Catholic Church did with the New Testament some claim they wrote..."who gave you your bible?" We got the bible despite them and I like to joke fairly brand new as it was barely used by them and still in its wrapping so to speak...lol

Even king's English speaking translators confused Joshua with Jesus...makes it all more interesting I say...like an encouraging sign to study more...

As I keep repeating much more effort is made to retain sports heroes or cultural icons their proper given names not to lose their cultural linguistic and ethnic heritage...than to our Savior Who died for us?

I am not ok with that and will maintain that Jesus is not His actual name

just as Sunday is not His given Day...for the same reasons...it's less Jewish and more palatable to converts...there is your antisemitism until you realize how eager the Jews were to keep goyim behind that wall He removed...

To avoid the OT and its circumcision they castrate themselves of deeper more potent and fruitful understanding. Alas...

ps: the Pharisees did not write the Hebrew text, they added their traditions to it. Funny thing, though, that if those "idolatrous wicked Jews" screwed everything up, then how come Jesus quoted from the Hebrew so often? Stop listening to your teachers who are misleading you with their anti-Jewish rhetoric.

Adding traditions included not saying the Name at all...can it be more carried in vain than that? Lol All He did to establish His Name gone for naught...out of respect lol...the gall

For centuries the church did many things unlike what is found in scripture and if the Spirit wishes to continue to restore what is now to what was then...on earth as it is in heaven...then who am I to maintain we hold on to the traditions of Jews or Catholics...and their modern "J"ots and tittles



Come out of her my people...

Seek ye first the kingdom of Yah...

 

[iamaberean]

So, my point is, why are you so concerned about how Jesus' name is pronounced or spelled when you have no concern at all about the name of his Father and his God? (John 20:17)

Jesus said his God was the Father, Jehovah. That means that Jehovah calls the shots, He directs everything that His Son and His angels do. He is the One who tells us that we must call on the name of His Son for salvation, because Jesus is the means by which Jehovah saves. Would we ignore the One who told us to call on His Son? I am concerned that people do that.

The name is important because it is the name by which we must be saved. Primarily, that starts when one is baptized.
Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
My threads question is, does anyone have the right to change, translate, a name by which we must be saved?

Jehovah has given all authority to his son, for a while.
Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.