Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

[Evang.Benincasa]

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I don't believe it is an evolution, but what we see the English Jesus is from the Latin. The Latin form of Jesus, as well as the Greek and the Aramaic were on the Cross. Everyone would of accepted the phonetics, as well as the spellings. Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum was above His head 2,000 years ago.

I realize that our Jesus stems from the Latin, which stems from the Greek, which stems from the Aramiac, which stems from the Hebrew, which stems from...?

My point is that, as languages evolve, both orthographically and phonetically, in 100 years, perhaps more, perhaps less, we may see a shift in how the name of the Lord is both spelled and pronounced in English.

And what will we have then?

I can only surmise that there will be a crowd arguing for preserving the name as Jesus, while there will be a new crowd clamoring to change the name to adopt new conventions of the evolution of the language.

So, if such should occur, at what point do we stop and ask, how many times can we evolve the name of the Lord, whether inter-linguistically or intra-linguistically, before we no longer have the name of the Lord?

I mean, do you suppose that when "J" was invented, anyone back then would have thought it would ever evolve into having a hard "G" sound, when it was only supposed to be a way to transliterate words that began with an "I" in order to indicate a "Y" sound?

So, what will the letters and phonemes of Jesus be in the future? Already, in just a few centuries, the "J" has evolved and now sounds like a "G", the middle "S" sounds like a "Z". The "U" is the schwa sound. I can only imagine that at that time, the name Jesus, in pronunciation, has become something the original users from a few centuries ago would have never thought it could become.

Might we not say the same thing if we live to see another evolution of the language?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What I have always noticed about this argument to prefer Yeshua, Yehoshua, Yeshu, over any other name, is that the conclusion is our New Testament isn't an original. But a Hellenized (or ROMANIZED) translation of an original Hebrew set of manuscripts. So, my questions remain unanswered, why was a Judean leader called by an Ancient Greek name? Was Nicodemus his name? Yohanan Marcus? Why did a disciple of Jesus Christ have an Aramaic name, and a Roman name? Phillip the apostle? His name has no Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent? Why? Was his name lost when the Greek New Testament was translated from the Hebrew original?

I haven't seen anyone here adamantly claim that the extant manuscripts of the New Testament are somehow un-original. What I have seen is a cautious admittance that since the earliest extant manuscripts, for the most part, are many decades removed from their autographs, and that since the autographs no longer exist, we cannot say with 100% certainty which language any of New Testament writings were originally written.

To me, at least, there's no damage to admitting the possibility. We already know the autographs don't appear to exist. That doesn't (tend to) concern anyone.

To think that the New Testament writings JUST HAD to begin in Greek and stay in Greek in order for them to still be inspired makes no sense.

I mean, we're all reading un-inspired English translations of whatever number edition of whoever's critical text. Additionally, we are all reading an un-inspired English translation of whatever number edition of whoever's critical text of an Old Testament functionally recreated by the Masorites in the Middle Ages.

So let's not act like it's such an attack on plenary inspiration to say that the extant Greek manuscripts, whether in part, or not, may only be translations.

Even our Lord and His Apostles used the LXX without compromise! And let's face it, the LXX is a mess of a translation (i.e. it wasn't and isn't inspired, either).

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What I have always noticed about this argument to prefer Yeshua, Yehoshua, Yeshu, over any other name, is that the conclusion is our New Testament isn't an original. But a Hellenized (or ROMANIZED) translation of an original Hebrew set of manuscripts. So, my questions remain unanswered, why was a Judean leader called by an Ancient Greek name? Was Nicodemus his name? Yohanan Marcus? Why did a disciple of Jesus Christ have an Aramaic name, and a Roman name? Phillip the apostle? His name has no Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent? Why? Was his name lost when the Greek New Testament was translated from the Hebrew original?

The Roman Empire had, by the 1st century, a pretty common convention for how citizens of the empire were named. It was and is called the tria nomina.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_naming_conventions

Paul, as a citizen, retained his birth name, given to him by his parents at circumcision. This means he was still Saul at home, with his family. This, the Romans called the praenomen.

As a citizen, Saul also needed to adopt a Roman or Gentile name, called the nomen gentilicium, which would identify him as part of a certain gens, i.e. a race, family, or clan, i.e. an ethnic group.

Finally, Paul adopted several different cognomen or additional names assigned to him based on his various characteristics, place of origin, occupations, and etc. This made him "Paul the Apostle", "Paul the Prisoner (of Christ)", "Paul the Aged" and etc.

As far as Nicodemus was concerned, having a Greek name doesn't mean he didn't also have a praenomen. We simply don't know. We do know his region of the world was highly Hellenized, and perhaps his parents thought he would be better off with a Greek name? Perhaps "Nicodemus" is a pseudonym meant to convey something about his character (i.e. a ruler of the people, indicated by his status as a Pharisee).

Philipp? He may have been adopted by a Greek-speaking Roman family. When this happens, the adoptee took on the name of his or her adopter. Maybe Phillip's dad was a Roman from Sepphoris or Decapolis and his mother a Galilean Jew?

Or maybe Philipp is a surname and serves as an agnomina, to indicate he had changed gens through adoption by a Roman family?

As regard John Mark: the same thing. Maybe he wasn't fully Jewish, from his father's side?

All questions aside, it's really no big deal why these Jewish men had Greek names. The truth is, we will never know why, whatever we may guess. We might hit the nail on the head, or we may not. Either way, we won't be able to know. We reach our epistemological limits pretty quickly as it pertains to such issues.

What we can say for sure, however, is that none of these men having Greek names proves that our Lord was given the name Iesous instead of Yeshua/Yehoshua by either Mary, Joseph, Gabriel, or God the Father. This, too, is beyond our reach.

[votivesoul]

I think my last points I want to make are as follows:

If we want to accurately transliterate the preserved in Greek New Testament manuscripts name of our Savior, that is, Ἰησοῦς, into English, we could and perhaps should adopt Yay-sous, or something very similar. It serves much better orthographically and phonetically.

And yet, we don't. Why? Because we like our traditions. And TRADITION dictates that we have to base our English transliteration of the name of our Savior off the LATIN (because the Latin transliterated from the Greek), or else it doesn't count.

And since "Jesus" was good enough for Paul and Silas...

The fact is, there is an white elephant in the room and no one wants to say it.

We find ourselves preferring Jesus because that's how we were introduced to Him, as J-E-S-U-S. We were baptized in the name of Jesus. God has healed us in Jesus' Name. We sing about the name of Jesus, and find ourselves blessed. We preach the name of Jesus, and the Spirit moves and people respond. We pray in Jesus' name and God answers us.

We therefore think that the name of our Savior begins and end with J-E-S-U-S. To question the validity of this name in English as it now exists causes us to subconsciously question whether we've believed a lie or not. If we deconstruct the name "Jesus" orthographically and phonetically and find it doesn't measure up, or isn't as accurate as we'd like, we might find ourselves in a crisis of faith.

But, let's face it. There's no need for that. Why? Because we are dealing with a living, real PERSON, not just a name.

And this living, real PERSON is gracious and merciful enough to respond to our faith IN HIM as a PERSON and not just in Him as some intangible name we try to pronounce. Remember, the Lord's name, however we decide to say it, whether we say Jesus, Jesucristo, Yesu, Yeshua, or etc., is not a magic charm to be used in incantations.

It is the nomenclature of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And He, as the Wisdom of God, can tell if we are referring to Him or not, and if we are, whether or not to respond to us according to our faith.

No one here, as far as I can tell, that advocates the use of Yeshua, is attacking anyone's convictions about who they are and what they believe, whether such convictions are valid or not, by simply preferring Jesus over Yeshua. But some here are dead-set against Yeshua as if it's a contaminated by-word not fit for the Savior. And that's not right.

Let us be peacemakers, brethren. When you see the Lord, face to face, He will be no less happy to call you to His throne if you call Him Jesus and not Yeshua, or vice versa.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I understand the process of the Roman system of names. Yet, these Judeans of the Empire had their names going all the way back to the time of Judas Maccabee. Still you cannot say for certainty that His name wasn't Ieosus. My point is that these men were identified by their Greek Roman names. Lover of Horses? Phillip name as Nicodemus' proves that they not only had ANCIENT GREEK names, but were able to speak the language. The Roman nomen system is told to us in Acts 15:37. Here we are told Marcus' Roman name. Paul was known exclusively prior to his conversion as Shaul but after he is always referred to in his Roman name. Again these Judeans were not just Hellenized because of Roman occupation which started with Pompy Magus in 65 B.C.. But with Alexander the Great, his four generals. The reason Jesus is quoted speaking so much Aramaic was because of Judea being captured by Aram speaking conquerors. But Judea was extremely Hellenized, the Eastern Roman world spoke Greek like English is our international language now. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, WHY? Because it wasn't meant to stay in the corner of the Middle East. But it was to go ( as her apostles) through out the known world. The Hebrewphiles would like to have us believe that our Greek New Testament was lost. Yet why doesn't Matthew 16:18 ( the supposed HEBREW Gospel) make any sense in Hebrew? In Aramaic it sounds like Peter is the Rock. Hence the reason the Roman church points out that Jesus made the quote in Aramaic. We know that Jesus wasn't telling Peter he was the rock. We know this because of the word play in Greek.

Also interesting how the "word" ADAMANT was employed? How no one adamantly said the New Testament was a translation? That wasn't what I pointed out in my replies to certain posters. It starts with the name game and ends up in bringing doubt upon the credibity on what we have in Greek. We don't have the originals? Scholars are finding out they do, and the more we research the more we prove the credibility of the Greek New Testament.

Maybe Phillip was adopted?

Both of the Phillips ( one an apostle the other a deacon) in the New Testament or just one of them?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I wonder why the Apostles never thought of using Isaiah 12:3 to prove to the 1st Century Judeans that Jesus was God?

Mike would you happen to know why they didn't use Isaiah 12:3?

Why didnt they use Isaiah 9:6?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Mike, it is feminine noun because it is the WORD salvation. Yehoshua is a name, the name of the Judean Messiah. I understand that people accept that Jesus was called Yeshua, but that doesn't mean Yah is salvation. Yehoshua is the compound word, not Yeshua. Hey, your the Hebraist here so spoon feed, is His name salvation or Yah is Salvation? I have heard this go back and forth over and over again. Jehovah Salvation, Yahweh Salvation, across pulpits, but Yehoshua is the only one that fits the bill. Yeshua means salvation, not Yah is salvation? Right?

You are hearing something new when I get there. Yes I understand that Yeshua or Yoshua (Joshua) is the shortened form of Yehoshua according to Neh. 8:17.

That is one of the first things that can be learned in the discussion.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hebrews 4:8

For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
KJV

Jubilee Bible 2000
For if Jesus {Joshua in Heb.} had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day.

Obviously. It should have come to us ideally from the Hebrew to the English. So are you opposed to calling Jesus by "Joshua"? It is certainly closer to if not the original name the Apostles called "Jesus".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Obviously. It should have come to us ideally from the Hebrew to the English. So are you opposed to calling Jesus by "Joshua"? It is certainly closer to if not the original name the Apostles called "Jesus".

English translators have a responsibility to translate the text before them, which in the case of the NT is in Greek. There is no Hebrew manuscript speaking of Jesus of Nazareth using a Hebrew form of the name. So the right and honest thing to do is to translate IESOUS and other Greek names (like OSEE in Romans instead of Hoshea) into the target language.

Otherwise you have what the "sacred name bibles" do - they follow the JW lead and just insert their favorite Hebrew name into the Greek text and call it good.