Evangelist Benincasa Said

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

More than likely, from what I've studied, the name that was given to Mary was Yeshua or Yehoshua. There is no "J" in the Hebrew "aleph-bet." When the disciples said that there was no other name, they most certainly did NOT use "Jesus."

Excuse me, but aren't you proving my point with the above? So, it is a coin toss between the two? Heads Yeshua, tails Yehoshua?

I guess it is just too easy to use a name that has been in business for over 2200 years and climbing. What is the name of the Messiah? Wouldn't the skinny answer would be Jesus? Yet, the students just reel back on their heels to hear the doctor tell them it is a guess beetween two words?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

That being the case,

Yes, since a coin toss is just a wee bit ludicrous, you do what?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I still baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now isn't that just amazing! Wow, the lucky boys and girls are never dependent on a coin flip.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

The "correct" name or pronunciation is not a "talisman" or incantation that causes things to happen...it is the person of Jesus Christ which the name we use represents.

The person of Jesus Christ?

Isn't a correct name or formula used in world history to show the authority of whose name and formula being used?

Therefore you sign your checks with your personal name, business name, and use proper account numbers, so to give authority for transaction. Therefore baptisms through out history wether they were Christian or pagan evoked a name or formula. All to show authority of the particular group, shaman, priest, or deity.

I by no means believe water baptism to be magic, using an incantation or abracadabra, being spoken over the neophyte. Water baptism in Jesus' name has all to do with the baptizer, and the baptizee. The individual being baptized needs to be a believer or one who trusts in the owner of the name.
The one who baptizes also should be one who trusts and believes in the authority of the one who owns the name. Genealogy in the Bible was crucial to the children of Israel, and therefore it was painstaking work to make sure you was begat by who, and who was married to who. All a collection of names of different male patriarchal leaders of different families.

Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about rebirth, and the rebirth that Jesus speaks of will use water baptism. A mikvah that will be done in the authority of the one who owns the name. All those who would take on that name through baptism would be added to the lineage of the one who owned the name.

The prophet Isaiah asks the queestion of who shall declare His generation (Isa 53:8)?

Jesus died young and without lineage, yet, through the power of His resurrection and His Spirit we are added to His genealogy by taking His name.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

If we say we must return to the "original" then we'll more than likely have to go back to Yeshua.

Heads?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I'm not for that even though it is probably correct.

Aren't you not for that because you presently use a name that has been around for over 2200 years? We aren't talking about splicing DNA here, we are talking about historical proofs throughout time.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Remember, the Greek language was used to communicate throughout the Roman empire since that was the language of it, but the writers were Jewish not Greek.

So, that means what? If someone is Mexican and has full knowledge of a foreign language (a language of commerce) that would make him less Mexican? No, but how about a Mexican named Tse Lu, who can speak and write Chinese, but he was raised in Mexico, others in his city were also business people who dealt with Chinese, and therefore would be able to effectively communicate in Chinese. Would that make those Mexican any less Mexican?

The Jews in the time of Jesus, spoke the language of the occupation which was Latin, the language of world commerce, which was Greek, and the language of their religion Hebrew. Those who lived around Judea spoke Aramaic. 200 years before Christ, the OT was translated into Greek, that OT LXX would be quoted from the New Testament scrolls used by the early church. None of those scrolls were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, because this wasn't a message just for a desert city, but for aan entire world throughout history. Andrew, and Phillip were as Jewish as Jesus, but they both had Greek names, given to them by Jewish parents. The name of Jesus has been preserved for over 2200 years and counting, no coin toss, no word jumbles, and no guess work. Just use the most used name...Jesus.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

The mistake most seminaries make is the over study of Greek culture, language etc to understand the NT. It was Jewish minds and cultures which wrote the NT not greeks.

MOW, how many years was the Jews under Gentile occupation?

What seminary did you go to?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Excuse me, but aren't you proving my point with the above? So, it is a coin toss between the two? Heads Yeshua, tails Yehoshua?

I guess it is just too easy to use a name that has been in business for over 2200 years and climbing. What is the name of the Messiah? Wouldn't the skinny answer would be Jesus? Yet, the students just reel back on their heels to hear the doctor tell them it is a guess beetween two words?




Yes, since a coin toss is just a wee bit ludicrous, you do what?



Now isn't that just amazing! Wow, the lucky boys and girls are never dependent on a coin flip.



The person of Jesus Christ?

Isn't a correct name or formula used in world history to show the authority of whose name and formula being used?

Therefore you sign your checks with your personal name, business name, and use proper account numbers, so to give authority for transaction. Therefore baptisms through out history wether they were Christian or pagan evoked a name or formula. All to show authority of the particular group, shaman, priest, or deity.

I by no means believe water baptism to be magic, using an incantation or abracadabra, being spoken over the neophyte. Water baptism in Jesus' name has all to do with the baptizer, and the baptizee. The individual being baptized needs to be a believer or one who trusts in the owner of the name.
The one who baptizes also should be one who trusts and believes in the authority of the one who owns the name. Genealogy in the Bible was crucial to the children of Israel, and therefore it was painstaking work to make sure you was begat by who, and who was married to who. All a collection of names of different male patriarchal leaders of different families.

Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about rebirth, and the rebirth that Jesus speaks of will use water baptism. A mikvah that will be done in the authority of the one who owns the name. All those who would take on that name through baptism would be added to the lineage of the one who owned the name.

The prophet Isaiah asks the queestion of who shall declare His generation (Isa 53:8)?

Jesus died young and without lineage, yet, through the power of His resurrection and His Spirit we are added to His genealogy by taking His name.




Heads?



Aren't you not for that because you presently use a name that has been around for over 2200 years? We aren't talking about splicing DNA here, we are talking about historical proofs throughout time.



So, that means what? If someone is Mexican and has full knowledge of a foreign language (a language of commerce) that would make him less Mexican? No, but how about a Mexican named Tse Lu, who can speak and write Chinese, but he was raised in Mexico, others in his city were also business people who dealt with Chinese, and therefore would be able to effectively communicate in Chinese. Would that make those Mexican any less Mexican?

The Jews in the time of Jesus, spoke the language of the occupation which was Latin, the language of world commerce, which was Greek, and the language of their religion Hebrew. Those who lived around Judea spoke Aramaic. 200 years before Christ, the OT was translated into Greek, that OT LXX would be quoted from the New Testament scrolls used by the early church. None of those scrolls were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, because this wasn't a message just for a desert city, but for aan entire world throughout history. Andrew, and Phillip were as Jewish as Jesus, but they both had Greek names, given to them by Jewish parents. The name of Jesus has been preserved for over 2200 years and counting, no coin toss, no word jumbles, and no guess work. Just use the most used name...Jesus.




MOW, how many years was the Jews under Gentile occupation?

What seminary did you go to?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

So, you are conceding that "Jesus" wasn't what the angel told Mary to name him and the disciples and the people of his time didn't use Jesus as well?

I haven't attended a seminary. I am a seminary professor specializing in the Jewish roots of Christianity and teach in both South Korea and China. I know what most seminaries teach regarding the topic. I'm not boasting, I'm just stating because you asked.

Listen, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm only pointing out what I have found through my own personal study. I'm quite fine with Jesus. It is how I pray, baptize etc. I'm not making a case for returning to its (Yeshua's) use. I'm only saying that if we get really "picky" about doing it in the original, we'll have to stop using the English transliteration, that's all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

So, you are conceding that "Jesus" wasn't what the angel told Mary to name him and the disciples and the people of his time didn't use Jesus as well?

nothing like using the name that was preserved in the Greek, and was spread all over the planet. Was He called by the angel, Yeshua, Yehoshua, or Hoshea? Also, why was it that two of His chosen apostles have Greek names?
Interesting how no one has a problem calling Miriam, Mary. Yet, we will slap the snot over one another to prove a guess name. Whatever.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I haven't attended a seminary.

?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I am a seminary professor

How does that work?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

specializing in the Jewish roots of Christianity and teach in both South Korea and China.

So, tell me why Jesus had two apostles with Greek names?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I know what most seminaries teach regarding the topic. I'm not boasting, I'm just stating because you asked.

I don't think I would take the past four quotes as boasting.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Listen, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm only pointing out what I have found through my own personal study. I'm quite fine with Jesus. It is how I pray, baptize etc. I'm not making a case for returning to its (Yeshua's) use. I'm only saying that if we get really "picky" about doing it in the original, we'll have to stop using the English transliteration, that's all.

Please no offence, but I never thought you were making a case for anything.

The facts remain the facts, Jesus is the name used (in its Greek form) 200 years prior to His birth, and 2,000 years and counting after His birth.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Scott Hutchinson]

This I feel would be of interest.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...p=strobelT3967

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

This I feel would be of interest.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...p=strobelT3967

Not sure how this applies to the current topic, but it is interesting.

[ManOfWord]

Great point above, Michael. There is no "J" in Hebrew and there is NO way that the angel told Mary to call him "JESUS." Listen, I have no problem with people digging into their history and stating that we need to return to our "roots." However, most only go as far back to their "roots" as they are comfortable with. I've studied Judaism in its historical context for 20yrs. I can always tell when someone is shallow in their study by saying that we must return to the "original." If they knew what that really meant, they wouldn't go there.

If we want to back to the "original" we'll have to stop using Jesus and go to Yeshua, which is favored above Yehoshua. But I've gone down that road as well and read from those who promote that doctrine. They only go that far because it suits their desires.

Only the foolish really advocate for returning to the biblical "original" when it comes to Bible because they'll have to bring a culture back into their lives which they're not willing to implement. At least in my experience anyway.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Great point above, Michael. There is no "J" in Hebrew and there is NO way that the angel told Mary to call him "JESUS." Listen, I have no problem with people digging into their history and stating that we need to return to our "roots." However, most only go as far back to their "roots" as they are comfortable with. I've studied Judaism in its historical context for 20yrs. I can always tell when someone is shallow in their study by saying that we must return to the "original." If they knew what that really meant, they wouldn't go there.

If we want to back to the "original" we'll have to stop using Jesus and go to Yeshua, which is favored above Yehoshua. But I've gone down that road as well and read from those who promote that doctrine. They only go that far because it suits their desires.

Only the foolish really advocate for returning to the biblical "original" when it comes to Bible because they'll have to bring a culture back into their lives which they're not willing to implement. At least in my experience anyway.

Well its true I dont advocate for a total return to Hebrew roots. I dont believe we are under the Mosaic law today. Neither do I feel a need to make myself Hebrew.

I dont assume that if a first century Hebrew script were discovered it would be different from the early Greek texts. But when it comes to knowing the original name thats important to me. I love my Savior. I feel its natural to want to know everything I can about him.

I dont tell anyone its a sin to use the English name Jesus. I use it often. However people like Dom (EB) who make it a point to always attack my position probably dont realize there are problems with the English version itself. Not with HIM our Lord and Savior but with the evolving of the name.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Great point above, Michael. There is no "J" in Hebrew and there is NO way that the angel told Mary to call him "JESUS."

Fact of the matter is, you hardly have any clue to what the angel told Mary.

Remember, you believe it is a coin toss between the two?

Yet, you want to still defend that it would be ok if someone had a shofar moment, and wanted to baptize someone in one of those misnomers.

What I have been saying over and over again is why not advocate what we do have. The representation of a name that has been around and in use longer than the mystery name. Until the Messianic Christian movement came in vouge, and the Sacred Name Cults launched to high gear, everyone was happy to use Jesus Christ. Then with the advent of the Hebrew Roots and Yahwists Jesus got a name change. He was given a kipa, peyos, tzitzes, and a shofar to blow over those He prayed for. Music in the services sounded more like what would be heard in Synagogue in Bensonhurst Brooklyn.
Jesus went from being God in the flesh, the Christ, to Yeshua Ha Messiah the Lubavitcher Rebbe of Brooklyn Heights?

Michael the Hebrew Roots Disciple, asked me why I made the comment to him about using the tried and true name (one that he himself called the highest in the English language no less) the name of Jesus Chirst.

I then replied to him that the name of Jesus had been in use for over 2200 years. Yet, that information went on deaf ears. We then tugged back and forth over word jumbles, semetic language Phds (one who claims that Yeshua was short form of Yehoshua? Good grief) and leading all the way to how the Angel told Mary how Jesus SHOULD be called. Yet, no one seemed to acknowledge that in the LXX the name Joshua is Iesoûs, not Yeshua.

I read over this thread and no one even mentions that in Ezra, and in the book of Joshua the name of Jesus is spelled differently. Ezra, Yeshua, and in the book of Joshua it is the earlier from. Yeshua is a latter from. Yet, 200 years before Christ, the name appears in Ezra as Ἰησοῦς, and in the book of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua as Ἰησοῦς. Anyone starting to understand what I'm trying to say here? Masoretic text seems hard pressed to figure out what name to use, yet 200 years before Christ was born, the name is found preserved in the Greek OT. Later the KJV, would preserve the name of Joshua as Ἰησοῦς in the book of Hebrews. Now, what would be easier?
Fishing around, flipping a coin, just wanting desperately to sound Hebraic?

God is NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS!!!! Jesus is God, NOT a nationality!

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Listen,

I'm still waiting to find out how someone who doesn't go to a seminary, becomes a seminary professor? Maybe its because you speak English, and they're Korean, and Chinese?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I have no problem with people digging into their history and stating that we need to return to our "roots."

We?? Who is the *we?* Looking for a robe and sandals? I presented 2200 years of history. Yet, one half of America pictures Jesus as a hippy in a robe and flip flops, and the other as a Hasidic Rabbi living in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

However, most only go as far back to their "roots" as they are comfortable with.

Yeah, as long as they aren't a part of your congregation. I doubt that you would be exicted about having your parishoners dressed like the cast of the Ten Commandments. Or, maybe you would?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I've studied Judaism in its historical context for 20yrs. I can always tell when someone is shallow in their study by saying that we must return to the "original."

Brother, most want us to return to Rabbinical Judaism (evolved after the destruction of the second temple and was codified by the middle ages). Also, some like the sacred name groups go into some odd type of homogenized Law Keeping religion. Yet, complete with skull caps, long beards, and a mix of Yiddish, and Hebrew.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

If they knew what that really meant, they wouldn't go there.

I totally agree with you there.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

If we want to back to the "original" we'll have to stop using Jesus and go to Yeshua, which is favored above Yehoshua.

You see, the debate is still on even about those two names. Going back to an original wouldn't be an issue, if the original Gospel accounts were written in Hebrew, and we had the original Aramaic/ Hebrew perserved. It is silly to say we have two originals so lets flip a coin. You have JESUS, for 2200 years and climbing. My argument isn't about originals, or Hebrew guess words, mine is more about agendas. If you have a name used for over 2200 years, why bother to force people to endure being greeted inb broken Hebrew?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

But I've gone down that road as well and read from those who promote that doctrine. They only go that far because it suits their desires.

You are correct.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Only the foolish really advocate for returning to the biblical "original" when it comes to Bible because they'll have to bring a culture back into their lives which they're not willing to implement. At least in my experience anyway.

It is just like Islam who desires their people to learn Arabic, and the men to wear a dress and the women slacks. Go figure.


In Jesus NAME!

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[DividedThigh]

i think it is cool you guys want to talk about this, but i know him as Jesus, good enough

[jfrog]

A couple of questions:

1. If I'm not mistaken, Hebrew has a "gee" sound present in it today. When did this develop?
2. Was there a "gee" sound in the Greek of Jesus' time?
3. What language did most Jews speak in Jesus' time?
4. Was Jesus named with a Hebrew name or with a Greek name?