Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

[Michael The Disciple]

Most outrageous belief.....

Any name that comes over from Greek in any of the languages is ok. It is considered to be fine and true for their own language.

HOWEVER

When it comes to the JEWISH NAME the Messianic Jews are taught the name THEY USE....is actually just a made up guess word! I guess they should just USE JESUS!

So ANY NAME is ok for all the various nations EXCEPT THE JEWS! They are left with nothing but a word/name that is repulsive to many "Apostolic" believers.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

27 pages of discussion about Jesus/Yeshua is not a bad thing is it? Perhaps one or more of us may learn something we did not know?

We could learn if someone were qualified to teach?
Can you imagine pretending you are professor in Russian but can't read or speak Russian? Then argue on the correct way to pronounce house in Russian?
So far no one has claimed to be able to read or speak ancient Hebrew?
Take away Strong's numbering system......well you know. Or quoting some "authority" who probably can't read or speak Hebrew either is amusing to Mel

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great argument, you are correct.

Phonetically, Jesus is a bad transliteration of Iesous.

So if God preserved the Word in Greek according to some of you, then you should transliterate from the Greek, but it is obvious you still are not transliterating from even the Greek.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Where is your original Aramaic or Hebrew manuscripts Mike?

Again, this has little to do about a name, but the Hebrew Only crew is really telling us that the New Testament isn't really the original, but a Hellenized bad copy. Think about that. Sad.

You call him Mike but his real name is Michael, are you sure you are speaking to the same person?

It seems to me you are capable of realizing there are variations in the name of a person while speaking to the same person.

so why in your arguments can not there be variations in the name of Yeshua, like Yehoshua or some other variation?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I dont believe there exists ONE original text anywhere. All we have are COPIES of the originals. I dont know of ANYONE who believes we have an ORIGINAL gospel or epistle.

Men have invented a doctrine that all the originals had to be in Greek across the board.

As I stated, the NT was written in Greek. Can you prove otherwise?

It was also preserved in Greek.

Why skirt that issue?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Great argument, you are correct.

Phonetically, Jesus is a bad transliteration of Iesous.

So if God preserved the Word in Greek according to some of you, then you should transliterate from the Greek, but it is obvious you still are not transliterating from even the Greek.

Jesus is the English form of Iesous. Everybody (except you?) knows that.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

As I stated, the NT was written in Greek. Can you prove otherwise?

It was also preserved in Greek.

Why skirt that issue?

There is no real way to prove that the original texts were Greek, for all we know the original texts might have been in Hebrew and then translated, we just don't know for sure.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus is the English form of Iesous. Everybody (except you?) knows that.

Of course I know that, but I also know it is not a very good transliteration.

The Greek is spelled Iesous and pronounced Yay-Sous.

The English is spelled Jesus and pronounced Gee-Zus.

There is a resemblance, but is an imperfect resemblance.

The phonetics are not the same.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Of course I know that, but I also know it is not a very good transliteration.

The Greek is spelled Iesous and pronounced Yay-Sous.

The English is spelled Jesus and pronounced Gee-Zus.

There is a resemblance, but is an imperfect resemblance.

The phonetics are not the same.

The man is a language major.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Of course I know that, but I also know it is not a very good transliteration.

The Greek is spelled Iesous and pronounced Yay-Sous.

The English is spelled Jesus and pronounced Gee-Zus.

There is a resemblance, but is an imperfect resemblance.

The phonetics are not the same.

If it was a PERFECT resemblance with identical ("same") phonetics it wouldn't be a transliteration it would be the EXACT same language.

Is Miguel the name "Michael" in Spanish? Or is it a "bad transliteration"? Should it be "Maicul" instead? And maybe both are bad? They should both be MeeHahyel or something?

The apostles never suggested the Hebrew form of the Saviou's name was better. They were perfectly fine using the Greek form (Iesous) for Greek speakers.

So, to suggest English speakers ought to use the Hebrew form goes contrary to example of the apostles. To suggest it is better, superior, "new revelation", etc is just not supported by anything except fallacious and baseless arguments against the authenticity of the Greek NT itself. Which shows the sacred name doctrine is NOT about the name at all, but about the TEXT OF THE NT AND THE DOCTRINE OF VERBAL, PLENARY INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE.