Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Yes the world that Yeshua was born into was heavily influenced by the Greek culture, but the assimilation was not total.

How do we know that? Because the red sea scrolls evidence point to a culture that still had strong ties to the Hebrew language.

the Bible itself points to this connection, when Pilate wrote the accusation of Jesus on the cross in three languages, Greek, Hebrew and Latin.

Then we have many Hebrew and Aramaic phrases spoken by Yeshua scattered throughout the gospels.

In the book of Acts there was discord because of the Hellenized Jews being treated differently, which resulted in the creation of 7 deacons.

We are not making a name change to sound more Hebraic, we are simply returning to a more authentic Hebrew name, because Jesus was a Hebrew.

All the names that you mention are simply variations to the name Yeshua.
The name Michael, has variations Mike, Mikey, and some more.
The names James has variations Jim, Jimmy and some more.

As you can see from my usage, I have no problems using the more authentic name Yeshua or the poorly transliterated name Jesus, because we are referring to the same person, that is why I have no problem baptizing people using both names.

Ok, red sea scrolls?

Poorly transliterated?

So, was it poorly transliterated in the LXX?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Ok, red sea scrolls?

Poorly transliterated?

So, was it poorly transliterated in the LXX?

I blame the autocorrect for that "red", it should say "dead", I refuse to accept the blame for such idiotic mistake.

The LXX was Greek, not English.

The English language did not come about until recent time.
I have an original English KJV 1611 and it says Iesus.

So we know that the original KJV translated it as Iesus, it was later on changed to Jesus, this is definite proof that the name Jesus is not a perfect transliteration by any means.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I blame the autocorrect for that "red", it should say "dead", I refuse to accept the blame for such idiotic mistake.

You see that's the problem with you jumping back and forth between two nicks. Red Sea Scrolls is what your alter ego Birddog would post.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The LXX was Greek, not English.

I totally understand that the LXX is Greek, but the Latin is Iesu, which is Jesus.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The English language did not come about until recent time.
I have an original English KJV 1611 and it says Iesus.

Pronounced Yee Sus, 17th Century English was pronounced quite differently from our 20th century English. What is important is that His name was originally Iesous in the Greek Hebrew Bible which was created 300 years before His birth. Joshua's name in the LXX is Iesous. Hence the reason that Hebrews 4:8 uses the name JESUS instead of Joshua. 2,000 years of the name of Iesous, Iesu, Jesus is a great amount of evidence.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

So we know that the original KJV translated it as Iesus,

It is 17th century English form of the Latin Iesu, which isn't odd in the least. The same Latin name which appeared above the head of Jesus on the Cross.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

it was later on changed to Jesus, this is definite proof that the name Jesus is not a perfect transliteration by any means.

The evolution of the letter J The letter J is only 400 years old as you well know since you brought up the I vs J issue. The letter J originated as a variant of the letter I. Why that happens is pretty sketchy.

The sound which we write as J was pronounced as the English letter Y, and to make things perplexing for English speakers, the phonetic symbol for this sound is J In Latin. the letter for this was I, in Greek it's iota, and in Hebrew it was yod. So, the Greek spelling for "Jesus" was Ιησους, pronounced something like "Yeeh-suess", and the Latin likewise was Iesu.

Finally, in the Latin alphabet the letter J was developed as a variant of I, and this distinction was later used to distinguish the consonantal "y" sound from the vocalic "i" sound. But, at the same time there was a sound change in many of the languages of Western Europe, such that the "y" sound changed into a "j" sound. Therefore we have a J in English, the letter J now represents a consonant which is not blatantly similar to the vowel, despite the fact that they descend from the same letter and the same sound.

You can see this history worked out differently in the spelling systems of German and many of the Slavic languages of Eastern Europe, where the letter J spells the "y" sound, and the letter Y, if used at all, is primarily used as a vowel.

It is pretty complicated subject, but that's how language evolves, and therefore so does pronunciation. The 15th century word, Tyre by the 18th century would be spelled Tire, but is similar in pronunciation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

To show the y sound in the J/I in Latin I posted this video, the Gaius Julius Caesar is pronounced Gyus Youyus Kaiser. Caesar in German was Kaiser, and in Russian Czar.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You see that's the problem with you jumping back and forth between two nicks. Red Sea Scrolls is what your alter ego Birddog would post.

I totally understand that the LXX is Greek, but the Latin is Iesu, which is Jesus.

Pronounced Yee Sus, 17th Century English was pronounced quite differently from our 20th century English. What is important is that His name was originally Iesous in the Greek Hebrew Bible which was created 300 years before His birth. Joshua's name in the LXX is Iesous. Hence the reason that Hebrews 4:8 uses the name JESUS instead of Joshua. 2,000 years of the name of Iesous, Iesu, Jesus is a great amount of evidence.

It is 17th century English form of the Latin Iesu, which isn't odd in the least. The same Latin name which appeared above the head of Jesus on the Cross.

The evolution of the letter J The letter J is only 400 years old as you well know since you brought up the I vs J issue. The letter J originated as a variant of the letter I. Why that happens is pretty sketchy.

The sound which we write as J was pronounced as the English letter Y, and to make things perplexing for English speakers, the phonetic symbol for this sound is J In Latin. the letter for this was I, in Greek it's iota, and in Hebrew it was yod. So, the Greek spelling for "Jesus" was Ιησους, pronounced something like "Yeeh-suess", and the Latin likewise was Iesu.

Finally, in the Latin alphabet the letter J was developed as a variant of I, and this distinction was later used to distinguish the consonantal "y" sound from the vocalic "i" sound. But, at the same time there was a sound change in many of the languages of Western Europe, such that the "y" sound changed into a "j" sound. Therefore we have a J in English, the letter J now represents a consonant which is not blatantly similar to the vowel, despite the fact that they descend from the same letter and the same sound.

You can see this history worked out differently in the spelling systems of German and many of the Slavic languages of Eastern Europe, where the letter J spells the "y" sound, and the letter Y, if used at all, is primarily used as a vowel.

It is pretty complicated subject, but that's how language evolves, and therefore so does pronunciation. The 15th century word, Tyre by the 18th century would be spelled Tire, but is similar in pronunciation.

You bring out some interesting points.

We need to realize that the S at the name of Jesus is not part of the original pronunciation, the S sound is a Greek device used to indicate that a name is masculine. Paul was Paulous, Mark was Marcus and so on the S sound was not a part of the Latin grammar. that is why in Latin the S at the end is missing an it is spelled as Iesu.

as a matter of fact even some English translations have the name with the missing S at the end.
(Tyndale 1534) “Remember ye not that all we which are baptysed in the name of Iesu Christ”
(Matthews 1537) “Remember ye not that all we which are baptized in the name of Jesu Christ”

There is no reason whatsoever for the name in English to be Jesus the ending of a name in the letter "s" is not a part of the English grammar, it was simply transliterated from the Greek name.

So if some early English bibles actually spelled the name as Jesu without the "s" sound at the end then it is obvious that the name Iesu is not correctly transliterated into English.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You bring out some interesting points.

We need to realize that the S at the name of Jesus is not part of the original pronunciation, the S sound is a Greek device used to indicate that a name is masculine. Paul was Paulous, Mark was Marcus and so on the S sound was not a part of the Latin grammar. that is why in Latin the S at the end is missing an it is spelled as Iesu.

as a matter of fact even some English translations have the name with the missing S at the end.
(Tyndale 1534) “Remember ye not that all we which are baptysed in the name of Iesu Christ”
(Matthews 1537) “Remember ye not that all we which are baptized in the name of Jesu Christ”

There is no reason whatsoever for the name in English to be Jesus the ending of a name in the letter "s" is not a part of the English grammar, it was simply transliterated from the Greek name.

So if some early English bibles actually spelled the name as Jesu without the "s" sound at the end then it is obvious that the name Iesu is not correctly transliterated into English.

A good point.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You bring out some interesting points.

We need to realize that the S at the name of Jesus is not part of the original pronunciation, the S sound is a Greek device used to indicate that a name is masculine. Paul was Paulous, Mark was Marcus and so on the S sound was not a part of the Latin grammar. that is why in Latin the S at the end is missing an it is spelled as Iesu.

as a matter of fact even some English translations have the name with the missing S at the end.
(Tyndale 1534) “Remember ye not that all we which are baptysed in the name of Iesu Christ”
(Matthews 1537) “Remember ye not that all we which are baptized in the name of Jesu Christ”

There is no reason whatsoever for the name in English to be Jesus the ending of a name in the letter "s" is not a part of the English grammar, it was simply transliterated from the Greek name.

So if some early English bibles actually spelled the name as Jesu without the "s" sound at the end then it is obvious that the name Iesu is not correctly transliterated into English.

S?

Iesus is the combination of the Greek, Latin, to late modern 18th, 19th century English. Tyndale translated his English Bible when scholars still spoke LATIN fluently. He stayed with the LATIN Iesu. Still, the issue is about words, names, transliterated not an interpretation, or translation. It is like Michael being Miguel, this Hebrew name Mikha'el is transliterated in many languages yet trying to keep its "phonetic meaning" which is what transliteration is all about! Not spelling! They Santiago is Saint Yakov NOT James, but the Spanish makes great strives to keep the "phonetics" not spelling.