Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

If you truly believe that, then you need to start calling him Iesous, instead of Jesus, which is pronounced differently.

My dear friend, please understand his post.

This isn't about a name anymore.

Seriously on the DAY LEE

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

His life, words, and NAME were recorded in Greek BY DIVINE SUPERINTENDANCE.

You have lost your Bible, friend, and don't realize it.

That is where this whole thing eventually leads.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

If you truly believe that, then you need to start calling him Iesous, instead of Jesus, which is pronounced differently.

Jesus is the English form of Iesous. So, you obviously do NOT believe the NT Greek text/manuscripts etc are the preserved Word of God? Thanks for clearing that up.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus is the English form of Iesous. So, you obviously do NOT believe the NT Greek text/manuscripts etc are the preserved Word of God? Thanks for clearing that up.

Sadly everytime I go through this subject I find that it entails far more than a name preference. The New Testament is somehow been Hellenized to such a degree that it needs to be revised in Hebrew to REALLY be understood.

Good Grief!!!!!

[votivesoul]

Phonetically, Jesus is a bad transliteration of either Yeshua or Iesous.

A transliteration is an attempt to leave a word un-translated but nonetheless incorporated into a secondary language by using the secondary language's alphabet (orthography) and as close as possible, the identical phonemes.

Gee-Zus sounds NOTHING like either Yeh-SHOO-ah or Yay-Sous.

This isn't about Hellenization or anything like that. It's merely a fact.

Jesus is as bad as transliteration of Yeshua and Iesous as Jehovah is for YHVH.

I mean, compare: Jehovah and Yahweh. They are nothing alike, not in spelling, nor in pronunciation. Neither, then, is Jesus anything like either Yeshua or Iesous, not in spelling or in pronunciation.

After all, if the idea of transliterating a term into another language is to create an exact or as close as possible replication of that term into the second language, then let's face it, the English Jesus doesn't do well.

English has the means to transliterate both Yeshua and Iesous, both orthographically and phonetically, (as proven by the way we write and pronounce Yeshua and Iesous), but for whatever reason, we don't. We just stick with Jesus as much as JW's stick with Jehovah.

Now, with that being said, it nonetheless doesn't appear to matter to the Lord, since He responds to Jesus as much as to any other form of His name in any other language.

[votivesoul]

Another point:

The fact that the New Testament was written in Greek per divine inspiration doesn't mean that everything we read in the New Testament whether from the Greek or in an English (or any other language) translation means we can fully understand all that was written.

There are cultural and linguistics elements to the time and place and events that are inherently Judaic. Certain customs and ways of doing things that the Greek doesn't or can't explain.

Take "Corban". A transliterated word that doesn't make any sense in Greek since nothing in the Greek/Hellenistic culture mirrors the idea of an offering made to the God of Israel at the temple in Jerusalem. So, the word was left untranslated and unexplained in the Greek text.

Same with baptism in English. It's merely a transliterated, but untranslated, Anglicized word. We know what it means, but how many know what is behind the idea of baptism, i.e. mikveh? Same with Sabbath, another transliterated term that the Greek writers did not attempt to define according to the Hebraic understanding of what is entailed by the Hebrew word שַׁבָּת‎ (Shabbat).

This doesn't mean there was some attempted conspiracy to hide the Jewishness of the New Testament by its Greek authors. It merely means that certain aspects of the Jewishness of the early Christian movement centered around Jesus of Nazareth have no compatibility with the Hellenistic surrounding environments.

And this means that certain, central tenets of the teachings of Christ are not fully understood by the average reader of the Gospels or the New Testament unless they do further research outside of the Bible to make sense of it all.

[Esaias]

Jesus is the English form of Iesous. It is not like Jehovah is to YHVH or Yahweh. That's ridiculous.

In my 1611 KJV read Iesvs which would have been pronounced "Yehsoos". The modern pronunciation of "Jee zuhs" is MODERN ENGLISH.

The lengths people go... amazing. To say "Jesus is as bad a transliteration as Jehovah" is patently ridiculous.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Another point:

The fact that the New Testament was written in Greek per divine inspiration doesn't mean that everything we read in the New Testament whether from the Greek or in an English (or any other language) translation means we can fully understand all that was written.

There are cultural and linguistics elements to the time and place and events that are inherently Judaic. Certain customs and ways of doing things that the Greek doesn't or can't explain.

Take "Corban". A transliterated word that doesn't make any sense in Greek since nothing in the Greek/Hellenistic culture mirrors the idea of an offering made to the God of Israel at the temple in Jerusalem. So, the word was left untranslated and unexplained in the Greek text.

Same with baptism in English. It's merely a transliterated, but untranslated, Anglicized word. We know what it means, but how many know what is behind the idea of baptism, i.e. mikveh? Same with Sabbath, another transliterated term that the Greek writers did not attempt to define according to the Hebraic understanding of what is entailed by the Hebrew word שַׁבָּת‎ (Shabbat).

This doesn't mean there was some attempted conspiracy to hide the Jewishness of the New Testament by its Greek authors. It merely means that certain aspects of the Jewishness of the early Christian movement centered around Jesus of Nazareth have no compatibility with the Hellenistic surrounding environments.

And this means that certain, central tenets of the teachings of Christ are not fully understood by the average reader of the Gospels or the New Testament unless they do further research outside of the Bible to make sense of it all.

So we need some scribes to give us the keys of knowledge?

I question this idea that we need something other than the Bible to make sense of or to understand the Bible. Didn't God know what he was doing when he gave us his book?

[berkeley]

My friend's parents named him Esteban. No one calls him that outisde of the home. He is referred to as Steve... even in the work place.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus is the English form of Iesous. It is not like Jehovah is to YHVH or Yahweh. That's ridiculous.

In my 1611 KJV read Iesvs which would have been pronounced "Yehsoos". The modern pronunciation of "Jee zuhs" is MODERN ENGLISH.

The lengths people go... amazing. To say "Jesus is as bad a transliteration as Jehovah" is patently ridiculous.

I am coming at this from a purely linguistic and phonetic schema, since this is where my collegiate training lays. I am not trying to make any theological claims here.

As such, Jesus/Gee-Zus doesn't do as well as we would like to think, as far as transliterations go.

You wrote "Jesus is the English form of Iesous". I submit that it's become the traditionally accepted English form of Iesous. And only because of the yod-dropping I mentioned before. English has evolved over the decades and centuries since "J" was introduced. "J" has become a completely different letter than it once was, especially phonetically.

The fact that your 1611 KJV has Iesvs is proof of that. No one reading the 1611 version would have read Iesvs and pronounced it as Jesus/Gee-Zus.

So the question remains: How many times are we going to evolve the name of our Savior? How many times are we going to let the evolution of our language dictate to us how we are supposed to pronounce the name of the Son of God?