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

[Wick Stick]

It's the only Hebrew there is. So what are you going to rely on?

No it isn't. We have manuscripts from before the time when the Masoretes added vowel pointings to Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls are the most notable example.

Anyway, I had much rather rely on the LXX. The translation into Greek was done BEFORE the Pharisees under Akiba and the Tanaiim CORRUPTED the text by adding vowel pointings.

And there are two separate mss - you are just promoting myths.

Two mss of what? There's a lot more than that, but maybe you're referring to a certain book or passage?

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:.

Ummm... have you read the Bible? Any history at all of the first two centuries? The Jews were the opposite of faithful.

From 90AD onwards the Pharisees ostracized the branch of Judaism following Christ and removed it from Judaism. Then they revised their literature to remove any hint they could find of Christianity in it.

Vowel points were a major part of that effort, as their addition allowed them to define an orthodox Jewish interpretation of ALL passages, where before that time, the text contained a great many ambiguities of the text which could have multiple interpretations. IN many cases, that ambiguity is intentional, as multiple meanings are both intended and correct.

Why the anti-Semitism?

Anti-semitism is real and present in America today, and something of which I've been the recipient on many occasions. Please don't cheapen it by throwing around the phrase like it's nothing.

 

[Wick Stick]

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:.

This is blatantly false. Are you trying to lie, or just ignorant?

We have the Dead Sea scrolls in Hebrew to compare with the Masoretic text.

We also have the Greek LXX, which is a translation from pre-Masoretic times. It belies many places where the meaning was altered substantially by the addition of vowel points. Likewise, the Old Testament portions of the Peshitta are another pre-Masoretic translation that shows places where the later Jews willfully corrupted the text.

You say God protected the Biblical text. I agree. He just did so in Greek and Syriac; not Hebrew.

 

[TweetyBird]

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

And your so called translation errors are based on what? If the 1000Ad Mas text is all we have, and it was used to translate the OT, then all you have to do is look at that mss and compare.

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

What did the Catholic Church do to the NT? There are over 5,000 mss that were scattered all over the Greek speaking world. Do you think they went out and gathered them all up and changed every single one?

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

Joshua and Jesus are the same Name. We have been discussing this all along, but you refuse to see language evidence. What kind of Hebrew scholar do you think you are that you cannot even grasp this simple concept?

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?

Sports legends and icons have nothing to do with the Name of Jesus and how it was transliterated from the Hebrew.

Come out of her my people...

Seek ye first the kingdom of Yah...

You should probably take your own advice.

 

[TweetyBird]

This is blatantly false. Are you trying to lie, or just ignorant?

We have the Dead Sea scrolls in Hebrew to compare with the Masoretic text.

The only book that is almost complete is the Book of Isaiah. And guess what, the KJV is accurate in its translation of it. The rest are frags and parts - you should really do some homework on this. Start with the Israel Antiquities and Emanuel Tov's work on the DSS and comparisons.

We also have the Greek LXX, which is a translation from pre-Masoretic times. It belies many places where the meaning was altered substantially by the addition of vowel points. Likewise, the Old Testament portions of the Peshitta are another pre-Masoretic translation that shows places where the later Jews willfully corrupted the text.

No, it's not. The LXX is a mish mosh of a mess - it's been reworked and re-translated to the point of mass confusion. In other words, it is junk. It DOES NOT match the DSS except in the most insignificant spots.

You say God protected the Biblical text. I agree. He just did so in Greek and Syriac; not Hebrew.

The Syriac is translated from the Greek.

The Hebrew was preserved, I am not sure why you are in a bunch over it. The DSS proves that the Hebrew was preserved.

 

[clefty]

And your so called translation errors are based on what?

my understanding of fallen human nature and its ability to err or deceive purposefully or unintentionally. As hard as the Spirit was at work to inspire each writer, Satan was just as much...

I come from a family of 5 languages and know how difficult it is to say what you mean and mean what you say even in one language...

Names are important and some prove more difficult to translate...

What did the Catholic Church do to the NT? There are over 5,000 mss that were scattered all over the Greek speaking world. Do you think they went out and gathered them all up and changed every single one?

Yup and not just change the letter but the translation and certainly the interpretations...

Joshua and Jesus are the same Name. We have been discussing this all along, but you refuse to see language evidence. What kind of Hebrew scholar do you think you are that you cannot even grasp this simple concept?

tell that to the king's English speaking translators so they could have left it alone...

So it's Jesus in the desert and Joshua on the cross?

Even Joshua would be a better English translation...

Sports legends and icons have nothing to do with the Name of Jesus and how it was transliterated from the Hebrew.

lol... you really are defensive...and Jesus is from the Greek not the Hebrew...

Why you so bothered by this attempt at restoration?

This is our Creator/Savior I mean to say...and more effort is given to give a sports star respect by getting his name right than our Savior...

You should probably take your own advice.

Yup...I am...reverse engineering this worship apparatus called a church has revealed a lot of man's tradition that was added and in error and/or deliberate deception...

 

[TweetyBird]

my understanding of fallen human nature and its ability to err or deceive purposefully or unintentionally. As hard as the Spirit was at work to inspire each writer, Satan was just as much...

I was looking for proof, not commentary on fallen human nature. God said He would preserve His Word, satan can do nothing, ever, to stop Him. Either God did or did not, and we are all fools for relying on a written text we believe was His intent.

I come from a family of 5 languages and know how difficult it is to say what you mean and mean what you say even in one language...

Which is your grasping at straws to make a non-existent position.

Names are important and some prove more difficult to translate...

Names are not translations, they are transliterations. John in English mean the exact as Yôchânân
in the Hebrew.

Yup and not just change the letter but the translation and certainly the interpretations...

nah .. they could not change 5000 mss scattered all over the place. Besides, you still have the first and second century writers quoting the NT text and it's the same as what we have in the middles ages translations.

tell that to the king's English speaking translators so they could have left it alone...

Jesus and Joshua are the same name, not the same person. There are some Jeshua's in the OT, they are not all Jesus Christ.

So it's Jesus in the desert and Joshua on the cross?

The Greek IESOUS is the same for both names.

H3091
יהושׁע יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
yeh-ho-shoo'-ah, yeh-ho-shoo'-ah
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.

Act 7:45 Which3739 also2532 our2257 fathers3962 that came after1237 brought in1521 with3326 Joshua2424 into1722 the3588 possession2697 of the3588 Gentiles,1484 whom3739 God2316 drove out1856 before575 the face4383 of our2257 fathers,3962 unto2193 the3588 days2250 of David;1138

Mat 1:1 The book976 of the generation1078 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 the son5207 of David,1138 the son5207 of Abraham.11

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

lol... you really are defensive...and Jesus is from the Greek not the Hebrew...

Jesus is actually from the Latin, IESUS. Both IESOUS and IESUS and Jesus are equal to the Hebrew and mean the exact same Name, with the exact same definition. These are transliterations, not translations.

Why you so bothered by this attempt at restoration?

It's not a "restoration" of His Name. It's an attempt at one-up-man ship.

This is our Creator/Savior I mean to say...and more effort is given to give a sports star respect by getting his name right than our Savior...

I don't see the connection. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Yup...I am...reverse engineering this worship apparatus called a church has revealed a lot of man's tradition that was added and in error and/or deliberate deception...

I could say the same about what you are presenting here as your brand of truth.

 

[clefty]

I was looking for proof, not commentary on fallen human nature. God said He would preserve His Word, satan can do nothing, ever, to stop Him. Either God did or did not, and we are all fools for relying on a written text we believe was His intent.

proof? I am the first to admit I am no scholar and I have no proof as I don't have all the manuscripts...who does?

I do believe He preserved His word despite us...but even with certain verses being clear and correct translation or transcription or transliteration there remains interpretation and further understanding

As for an agenda to alter or deceive ther is evidence

http://reformation.org/sunday-the-sabbath.html

Which is your grasping at straws to make a non-existent position.

Non existent? Lol...you have already conceded Joshua or Yeshua are more accurate than Jesus...

As if Jesus and Joshua are the same name...lol

Names are not translations, they are transliterations. John in English mean the exact as Yôchânân
in the Hebrew.

Awww...that's nice and I often hear John is a bible name...parents are so proud...funny we don't have a king Yôchânân in our studies of English history...you know being the same name having the same meaning...

Oh wait what?

"The name John, or rather the Hebrew original, Johannan, consists of two elements. The first part is יה (Yah) = יהו (Yahu) = יו (Yu), which is the truncated form of יהוה, which is YHWH, the Name of the Lord.

The final part of the names John and Johannan comes from the verb חנן (hanan), meaning to be gracious"

Does "Jo" mean God and "hn" mean has been gracious? Really?

Lol...doesn't sound the same...doesn't mean the same...loses all of its original...

Ironic all the Jewishness is lost...or is it?

nah .. they could not change 5000 mss scattered all over the place. Besides, you still have the first and second century writers quoting the NT text and it's the same as what we have in the middles ages translations.

that is not what my bible's footnotes say...some books even have entirely different endings...

But you wanna keep man's traditions alive feel free...I know one of man's traditions is getting it wrong despite all the learned doctors and scholars and fancy words at councils and such...

Jesus and Joshua are the same name, not the same person.

again tell that to the KJV translators that had Jesus in the wilderness giving rest and leading the people to promise land...ironic as Joshua is a closer rendering of the original lol

There are some Jeshua's in the OT, they are not all Jesus Christ.

all the more reason to get it right...lol

The Greek IESOUS is the same for both names.

H3091
יהושׁע יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
yeh-ho-shoo'-ah, yeh-ho-shoo'-ah
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.

Act 7:45 Which3739 also2532 our2257 fathers3962 that came after1237 brought in1521 with3326 Joshua2424 into1722 the3588 possession2697 of the3588 Gentiles,1484 whom3739 God2316 drove out1856 before575 the face4383 of our2257 fathers,3962 unto2193 the3588 days2250 of David;1138

Mat 1:1 The book976 of the generation1078 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 the son5207 of David,1138 the son5207 of Abraham.11

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

Jesus is actually from the Latin, IESUS. Both IESOUS and IESUS and Jesus are equal to the Hebrew and mean the exact same Name, with the exact same definition. These are transliterations, not translations.

Greek readers were very familiar with the content and context and knew which one was who...

English readers not so much and thus two names were needed...especially since well, Joshua was you know, too Jewish and Old Testament...done away with...

Jesus sounded much more hip, modern, new covenant stuff...forget about that old Jewish stuff right?

It's not a "restoration" of His Name. It's an attempt at one-up-man ship.

LOL...how defensive are you?

You remind me of a quote:

When truth is replaced by silence,the silence is a lie.
Yevgeny Yevtushenko

I don't see the connection. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Yeah maybe...but at least both are understood and appreciated as fruit...and known in its own catagory

But in name game case only one fruit is properly identified and named...

I could say the same about what you are presenting here as your brand of truth.

Feel free...include other names...share what the mean...Peter is another name often discussed...

Another of Eugene's quotes comes to mind

Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful.
Yevgeny Yevtushenko

Eugene...lol

 

[Wick Stick]

The only book that is almost complete is the Book of Isaiah. And guess what, the KJV is accurate in its translation of it. The rest are frags and parts - you should really do some homework on this. Start with the Israel Antiquities and Emanuel Tov's work on the DSS and comparisons.

I have. I've read most of what's been translated and published... which is not very much compared to what is actually there.

The LXX is a mish mosh of a mess - it's been reworked and re-translated to the point of mass confusion. In other words, it is junk. It DOES NOT match the DSS except in the most insignificant spots.

I disagree strongly. The LXX preserves a record of how the early church interpreted the Scriptures. The Masoretic text does not.

The Syriac is translated from the Greek.

Debatable. For some books, clearly so. For others, not clear at all.

The Hebrew was preserved, I am not sure why you are in a bunch over it. The DSS proves that the Hebrew was preserved.

The Hebrew was sorta preserved. I mean, everything is there. It's just that so much was ADDED to it, and in so many places, the meaning has been changed by what was added.

Given the choice between a Bible that has been translated by Christian men, or one that was interpreted by the greatest enemies the church has ever faced, I opt for the former.

You should research Rabbi Akiba and the Tanaiim, and the purposeful break they created between Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Richard Tanner]

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?

As a precursor I would like to state that there is precedence for using The Name "Jesus" in Baptism. However,

If exact formula was that important - then why was the formula different every time in Acts? "In the name of Jesus Christ", In the name of the Lord", In the name of Jesus of Nazareth" to name a few. If you read the context in which these statements are made you will see that the emphasis was on the believer and their faith in that name. Not what the preacher or whoever said as they baptized the initiate. Yes you could use the grammar approach - "name vs names" but really what was more important - What was said? or What was believed? if you say it is what was said then you have essentially reduced baptism to a magical incantation - witchcraft.

 

[TweetyBird]

proof? I am the first to admit I am no scholar and I have no proof as I don't have all the manuscripts...who does?

Then why are you making false statements based on your own suppositions and not on actual scholarship?

I do believe He preserved His word despite us...but even with certain verses being clear and correct translation or transcription or transliteration there remains interpretation and further understanding

Give an example.

As for an agenda to alter or deceive ther is evidence

http://reformation.org/sunday-the-s.../2016/09/09/what-is-transliteration/ [/quote]

 

[clefty]

Then why are you making false statements based on your own suppositions and not on actual scholarship?

it doesn't take much scholarship to understand Jesus is not His given name...even young children easily understand why Miquel is Mike...and why Miquel is not Mike...

Give an example.

I did and if you were intellectually honest you would already have your own list of times translators "missed"

We do not, nor have we ever had the "original" Scriptures. It's a straw man argument based on the physical non existence of those Scriptures.

for this we don't need them...just common sense..."hey what do Jews call Jesus in Hebrew/Aramaic?"

"Oh,ok thanks...so it's not Jesus? No? Ok...thanks again"

Ironic that the same church that claimed for hundreds of years to have peices of the actual cross or the very nails that pierced His flesh or the bones of saints...doesn't have first century manuscripts..."originals"

Or do they? Have you been in their vaults?

I said no such thing. They are all the SAME Name. They mean the same thing, they are defined as the same exact name. Do you understand what a transliteration is?

Well then call Him Joshua...or Yeshua or...something more Hebrew...

After all He did His Name is carried in vain...all the kosherness of Him, His festival keeping, His redefining of Sabbath, seeped in the culture and tradition of His time...

They are, as I have showed you through a lexicon.

why the need for two names then...leave it at Joshua...and before the j was invented yoshua or something that sounds like that and not somthing like "cheese n rice"

You can see by the transliteration of the Hebrew that YOchanan does not begin with "yah". The YH is pronounced differently at the beginning of a Name. At the end of a Name, yes, then it's "yah" - Like Eliyah or in English, Elijah.

Maybe in a dialect? You sure seem to know for someone who says we can't know cuz we don't have originals...

As if Greek Jews wouldn't know how to say Joshua in Hebrew...

Joshua and Yeshua are the same name. One is Hebrew, one is English. I find it really advantageous that the KJ translators used Jesus and not Joshua due to the context of that passage and the prophecy concerning Himself.

Lol Really? Advantageous? So wait, you mean there are some? So translating one or another way makes a difference yes? Lol...hmmmm I wonder why would you find it so in this case? Lol

Too bad for you the corrections were made...now what?

It wasn't Joshua but Joshua lol...


[qoute]I already quoted the name "Joshua" used in the English in the NT. So your argument of the anti-Jewishness of the Scriptures by the translators is proved false. [/quote] yeah ok...right...so start using joshua then will you?...Yeshua?

Jesus is His name in English.

and so is Don Quixote a name in English of a Spanish hero...and?

He is answering those who call upon Him by that Name.

is He? What if it was a jot or tittle changed and idolatry or a violation of the 3rd commandment...

Some also claim Lord! Lord! is enough...is it?

Some also claim grace is enough...is it.

The Bible is not Jewish. It's a spiritual Book for the spiritual mankind.

ummm...right ok...Hebrew is also not Jewish...but the language spoken to man...

Again, we are not talking translation, but transliteration. The more you keep posting on this topic, the sillier it gets.

Lol...and what?...even your post admits proper nouns are tricky

What is silly to me is you desperate defense to keep Jesus the name above all other names...

As if:

"Hey Moishe! Hand me the temple registry..."

"Here it is...why? what's up Chaim?"

"Oh I just want to see who that baby Simoen and Anna got all excited about is..."

"Oh you mean Miryam's kid?"

"Yeah...ok here it is Jee-Zeus...hmmmm...little punk is English?"

"Naw some Greek bastard...I heard a Roman centurion...you know..."

"Oy vey!"

 

[iamaberean]

As a precursor I would like to state that there is precedence for using The Name "Jesus" in Baptism. However,

If exact formula was that important - then why was the formula different every time in Acts? "In the name of Jesus Christ", In the name of the Lord", In the name of Jesus of Nazareth" to name a few. If you read the context in which these statements are made you will see that the emphasis was on the believer and their faith in that name. Not what the preacher or whoever said as they baptized the initiate. Yes you could use the grammar approach - "name vs names" but really what was more important - What was said? or What was believed? if you say it is what was said then you have essentially reduced baptism to a magical incantation - witchcraft.

The scripture says there is no other 'name' by which we must be saved. Then we must ask the question, "why do we use a name that is not a translation at all, but a transliteration"?
Many Jews, of that time, understood Greek, but they spoke in the Hebrew tongue.
Act 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you.
Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

One would have to assume that Peter would also speak in Hebrew when speaking to his people.
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.

I started this thread to encourage us to think. Some of us have been baptized in Jesus name and others in the title of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I am not saying that anyone is wrong in doing what they have been told.

We can think about it though.

 

[clefty]

As a precursor I would like to state that there is precedence for using The Name "Jesus" in Baptism. However,

If exact formula was that important - then why was the formula different every time in Acts? "In the name of Jesus Christ", In the name of the Lord", In the name of Jesus of Nazareth" to name a few. If you read the context in which these statements are made you will see that the emphasis was on the believer and their faith in that name. Not what the preacher or whoever said as they baptized the initiate. Yes you could use the grammar approach - "name vs names" but really what was more important - What was said? or What was believed? if you say it is what was said then you have essentially reduced baptism to a magical incantation - witchcraft.

Let's hope we say exactly what we believe...

Baptism is exactly a magical incantation as it is only symbolic and doesn't actually wash sins away but is a public testimony to what is believed through what is said and done...sprinkled or immersion? A particular name or any name?

As with EliYah on mount Carmel...two altars...two dead animals...only one true God...

The only thing that doesn't make baptism merely a magical incantation is that we believe it is real by using a name of the true and real God...


Non believers think it remains mere magic...(sadly some believers do too claiming it is necessarily salvific in and of itself and it has permanent powers...)

 

[Richard Tanner]

Let's hope we say exactly what we believe...

Baptism is exactly a magical incantation as it is only symbolic and doesn't actually wash sins away but is a public testimony to what is believed through what is said and done...sprinkled or immersion? A particular name or any name?

As with EliYah on mount Carmel...two altars...two dead animals...only one true God...

The only thing that doesn't make baptism merely a magical incantation is that we believe it is real by using a name of the true and real God...


Non believers think it remains mere magic...(sadly some believers do too claiming it is necessarily salvific in and of itself and it has permanent powers...)

My friend there are incantations utilizing names of gods and spirits where the one speaking the said name fully believes in that name, and that the bearer of the name is real. And in many cases is real. Just not as friendly as they suppose.

 

[clefty]

Agreed...

But when in competition Baal is the loser yes?

Satan can and does perform his and for his own but when up against the Almighty ONE
his incantations and ceremonies and magic and names are powerless...

Like at mt. Carmel

Believe as they did the baal's priests failed not worshipping the True God...Him and His way...

False worship of the true God is not worship...obey Him His way...

 

[TweetyBird]

I have. I've read most of what's been translated and published... which is not very much compared to what is actually there.

Then your position that the Jews messed with the text has no merit.

I disagree strongly. The LXX preserves a record of how the early church interpreted the Scriptures. The Masoretic text does not.

If you are referring to NT "quoting the LXX", you are completely incorrect. There was no completed LXX in the first century. It was a much later creation with a spurious history.

Debatable. For some books, clearly so. For others, not clear at all.

When someone desperately needs to hold on to something they believe, which has no historical basis, they will use everything they can to prove it right.

The Hebrew was sorta preserved. I mean, everything is there. It's just that so much was ADDED to it, and in so many places, the meaning has been changed by what was added.

Give an example.

Given the choice between a Bible that has been translated by Christian men, or one that was interpreted by the greatest enemies the church has ever faced, I opt for the former.

Please clarify what you mean. You are aware that the man who is responsible for compilation of 1000AD ben Chaiyym Masoretic mss was a Christian?

You should research Rabbi Akiba and the Tanaiim, and the purposeful break they created between Christianity and Judaism.

What does that have to do with the Hebrew mss? There was no Judaism connected with Christianity. They are two separate religions.

 

[TweetyBird]

it doesn't take much scholarship to understand Jesus is not His given name...even young children easily understand why Miquel is Mike...and why Miquel is not Mike...

IESOUS was His given Name, according to the Gospels.

I did and if you were intellectually honest you would already have your own list of times translators "missed"

You gave no examples, you just keep going on and on with nothing to support your position.

Maybe in a dialect? You sure seem to know for someone who says we can't know cuz we don't have originals...

As if Greek Jews wouldn't know how to say Joshua in Hebrew...

What do you mean by "Greek Jews"???

Lol Really? Advantageous? So wait, you mean there are some? So translating one or another way makes a difference yes? Lol...hmmmm I wonder why would you find it so in this case? Lol

The Name is same. The pronunciation and spelling is only using an alphabet. The meanings of both Names are the same. That is why it does not matter if Joshua or Jesus was used in the context of the Hebrew passage - the "He is salvation or God is salvation" was in the wilderness pointing to another day.

yeah ok...right...so start using joshua then will you?...Yeshua?

It's the same name and means the same thing. The use of Joshua was allegorical of the person of Jesus Christ as pointing to another day. The name means the same thing, so it makes sense to me. You are incorrectly concerned about a pronunciation and spelling. The OT written before the time of David was not even in Hebrew. We have no idea what Joshua's name was "originally". But we do know what his name means, and that definition never changed.

What if it was a jot or tittle changed and idolatry or a violation of the 3rd commandment...

What does a spelling of the name of Jesus have to do with taking His name in vain?

ummm...right ok...Hebrew is also not Jewish...but the language spoken to man...

What are you referring to?

"Hey Moishe! Hand me the temple registry..."

Moses was an Egyptian name changed to "mosheh" at some later date. The Hebrew is Mosheh, not moishe.

 

[TweetyBird]

The scripture says there is no other 'name' by which we must be saved. Then we must ask the question, "why do we use a name that is not a translation at all, but a transliteration"?

A transliteration is just the use of letters in one's own alphabet that sounds the closet to the language being transliterated from. The use of IESOUS is grammatical, not theological. The Greeks could not pronounce the "sh" or "yeh" sounds - which are not found in their language. So they used letters most closely resembling the sounds of Yeshua and used "IESOUS". It's just simple language science and happens all the time from one language to another. A really good example is the Chinese language. They have no "R" sound - which is why they replace the "R" with a "W".

Many Jews, of that time, understood Greek, but they spoke in the Hebrew tongue. One would have to assume that Peter would also speak in Hebrew when speaking to his people.

And what does this have to do with the transliteration of Yeshua into IESOUS?

 

[TweetyBird]

Agreed...

But when in competition Baal is the loser yes?

Satan can and does perform his and for his own but when up against the Almighty ONE
his incantations and ceremonies and magic and names are powerless...

Like at mt. Carmel

Believe as they did the baal's priests failed not worshipping the True God...Him and His way...

False worship of the true God is not worship...obey Him His way...

Do you realize that God called Himself, Ba'al?

 

[clefty]

Do you realize that God called Himself, Ba'al?

Lol...what a husband master?

With so many titles and names being used no wonder He had to clarify it...

Idolatry was Israel's downfall...the irony includes worshipping even the right God with the wrong worship...title...name

Obviously jots and tittles matter...not to be carried anywhere for naught

To think some instruct to not use His Name as a form of respect...lol

Write it as G-d...LOL