Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

[Esaias]

Don't forget Iahoshua and a half dozen variants of that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don't forget Iahoshua and a half dozen variants of that.

Do you remember the guy who had that website!

He said he was the last prophet of the third angel prophecy.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jesus was Hellenized not meaning He wandered about in a toga, crowned in laurels. Meaning that His language, His culture, His surroundings were majorly influenced by hundreds of years of Grecian influence since the time of Alexander. His language was Aramaic which was a foreign tongue to the Hebrew people adopted from their Assyrian, and Babylonian captivities.
When Alexander conquers the Middle East, and after his generals, the language again is influenced by Greek. Jesus quotes the LXX, Paul quotes the LXX. As far as anyone who refused to assimilate into the Greek culture, it was around far longer than 50 years. Jesus' apostle Phillip had a Greek name which couldn't be translated into Hebrew or Aramaic. There isn't a Hebrew name for the Friend of Horses.

When Jesus rebukes the Syrophoenician (Greek Syrian) by calling her an ankle biting dog. The phrase is totally Greek in origin. Jesus more than likely used it because it was a phrase used among the Greek Syrian people for anyone who was annoying. Yesha is found in your Strongs 3468, which the His name would of been Yesha because He would deliver, save His people. Iesous, and Iesus, are actually transliterations of Yesha, which was the earliest form of the later Yeshua, Yehoshua. In the LXX 300 years before the birth of Christ, the book of Joshua was called Iesous by the Hellenized Judeans of the Diaspora. Judaizing of the Gospels and the Church is nothing new, groups were busy and hard it for centuries. The Gospel wasn't to meant to stay in one geographical location, but in a language of the entire known world. It also wasn't meant to be Hebraized taking 2,000 years of His name to change it over candidates in baptism to make it sounds more authentic.

Don't get me wrong Birddog I love you and respect you as my friend, this is what I see as I study. The more I study, the more it gets even clearer. Ossuaries in Judea from the first century in Greek, and Aramaic. Judean rebel soldiers in the Bar-Kokhba Revolt only 65 years later, were unable to read messages of their leaders in Aramaic, but could only read messages in Greek.

So was Jesus smack in the middle of a Hellenized Hebrew world? I would have to emphatically say yes. Did He speak Greek? No doubt. Did His mother call Him Iesous? There is a great possibility she did. But even if she didn't, we have been baptizing, casting out demons, praying over our grits and eggs in Jesus name. 100s, even 1,000s of us. Making a name change to sound more Hebraic? Just makes little sense to ME. Yeshua, Yoshua, Yehoshua, Yesha, Yahavahsua, (I have heard some doozies) but the guess name this all over the place just depends on what Yahwist, Sacred Name, or Hebrew Roots group you deal with.

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.

[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.

[votivesoul]

I think the issue is more with the phonetics of the name versus the orthography.

Phonetically, we pronounce the name Jesus like so:

[GEE-zuss] or, more formally, [dʒiːzəs]

Yeshua is pronounced like so:

[ye-SHOO-ah], or more formally, [yēšūă‘]

Every available allophone of each phoneme in each name is completely different from the corresponding one. See the list:

The Letter "J" Versus The Letter "Y"

J = voiced post-alveolar affricate /dʒ/ (i.e. a hard "g" sound, as in jeans)
Y = palatal approximate /j/ (as in yes)

The Letter "E" Versus The Letter "E"

E = close front unrounded vowel /iː/ (as in geese)
E = close-mid front unrounded vowel /e/ (as in trestle)

The Letter "S" Versus The Letters "SH"

S = voiced alveolar fricative /z/ (as in zip)
SH = voiceless post alveolar sibilant /ʃ/ (as in shun)

The Letter "U" Versus The Letter "U"

U = mid central vowel /ə/ (known as "schwa" in English, as in salami)
U = close back rounded vowel /u/ (as in "loose")

The Letter "S" Versus The Letter "A"

S = voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ (as in confess)
A = open mid-back unrounded vowel /ʌ/ (as in rut)

To simply:

- /dʒ/ versus /j/, or "J" versus "Y"

- /iː/ versus /e/, or "E" versus "E"

- [z] versus /ʃ/, or "S" versus "SH"

- /ə/ versus /u/, or "U" versus "U"

- /s/ versus /ʌ/, or "S" versus "A"

Allophonetically, or in the individual sounds of each name, it is quite clear that Jesus and Yeshua ARE NOT THE SAME NAME AT ALL.

They don't even bear a passing resemblance, allophonetically speaking (not to mention syllablically). Just say them out loud one after the other after the other for awhile. If we took someone else's name and evolved or changed it as much allophonetically speaking, if we tried to address them with the evolved or changed version, they wouldn't know we were addressing them and would correct us and tell us that the evolved or changed version isn't their name.

And yet the Son of God seems to respond to either pronunciation, whether in prayer, in the working of miracles, or in baptism.

What then does this suggest?

It suggests to me that:

1.) The name of our Lord isn't a magic charm or incantation dependent upon an exact pronunciation (although we can all agree, I think, that his name isn't Ted, or Brian, or Henry, and etc.).

2.) The name of our Lord stands in for an actual, living person who is capable of knowing whether or not we mean or intend to refer to Him whether we say His name just right or not (so long as we aren't trying to completely rename Him, as in the parenthetical example above).

3.) That Hebrew is not a sacred or divine language; God responds to every tongue

4.) That the Sacred Name crowd are picking a fight with everyone else that God didn't ask them to pick

5.) That it comes down to personal preference

6.) That being the case, no one should judge another for their personal preference

7.) That the Lord would have us unify around Him, as a person, and not dis-unify against Him as if He is merely a name