From my religion professor in college. Although, I'll have to consider the source because he is a "moderate" Baptist who doesn't hold to Biblical inerrancy.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Amen!<br><br>I don't even know why they are called "moderates." If they are moderates, I'd hate to see what the liberals believe!
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Pilgrim,<br>Jesus is NOT the English translation from Greek of Christ' name. The name Jesus is a Latinized Greek translation of Joshua (a corruption of the Hebrew Yahshua). <br><br>Joshua, the author of The Book of Joshua, in the Old Testament and Christ were given precisely the same name.<br><br>As far as translating Matt. 1:21, the name of the Messiah does NOT translate from Greek into English as Jesus. My personal preference is to have left it Yahshua, if not that, then Joshua.<br><br>The name Jesus is a creation of someone, and a bad one at that.
Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]But, if you make this assertion that we should call Jesus, ONLY Y'shua, or....?, then we must apply this line of reasoning to the rest of the Word of God.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Nonsense! If we translate the words of, say, Vladimir Putin, do we also anglicize his name?<br><br>Yes, Christ has many names in the Bible, Son of God, Son of Man, Word, Lion of Judah, King of Kings etc., but Jesus isn't one of them, and it doesn't even come close to His true name.
I'm pretty sure about this but i could be wrong.<br> <br>Yeshua or Jeshua was a variation of Yashua or Yehoshua used in the old testament. It was used for Joshua in the book of Nehemiah. <br><br>Nehemiah 8:17<br>And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness <br><br>Yeshua actually means "He will save" (Matt. 1:21) in the original Hebrew. Its in the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance in the hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary if you wanna check that out. <br>Anyway, i tend to agree with everyone else that calling Him Jesus really doesn't matter.<br>
The_Zar said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]If you're questioning the divinity of Christ then that's a whole other problem that needs to be addressed.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><span style="background-color:yellow;">I am NOT questioning the divinity of Christ.</span><br><br>Jesus/Yahshua has always existed as the second person in the trinity, and always will. He is, was and always will be God.
The Angel told Joseph: "And she [Miriam] shall bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name [not the Latin-Greek name "Jesus" that you find in your Bible, but] Yahshua: for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21).<br><br>The Savior was born of the tribe of Judah. He was a Jew, and was given a Hebrew name - not a Greek, Latin or English name. His name should sound the same the world over no matter which language is spoken. Not to do so is to corrupt it, and to corrupt it is violation of the Third Commandment. [Being told not to take God's name in vain, means not to desecrate it. Taking the Saviors name and substituting another in its place IS desecrating it.] <br><br>As I said in another post, the name Jesus is a Latinize Greek translation of Joshua (a corruption of the Hebrew Yahshua). Joshua later took on the form Jeshua, which explains the "e" in Jesus. The "us" ending was added to indicate masculine transformation.) He was never called Jesus in His lifetime. <span style="background-color:yellow;">In fact, the name Jesus did not exist until about 500 years ago, as scholars point out.</span><br><br>The scholars who translate the Bible into the English language know that His name is not Jesus, but they continue to use it because it has for centuries been accepted as His name. Tradition has made it more popular than His true name.<br><br>"Jesus" is a Latin-Greek name transliterated from the Greek "Iesous," The Savior was not a Greek, but had a Hebrew name. The name "Jesus" carries no meaning of "Yahweh is our Salvation." For the sake of accuracy, if for no other reason, we should use the Name that the angel of [God] told His parents to call Him. Any other is not His name.<br><br>While others have carried the name Yahshua, only One has been dedicated and declared holy from conception, Luke 1:30-35. It is what He is, was, and will be that makes that name special. There is significant meaning in that name for we are told that "there is none other name given amoung men, wherby we must be saved," Acts 4:12. There are other Yahshua's in the Bible, but there is only one Yahshua the Messiah.<br><br>I got this information from a booklet written by Jews who are Christians. The name of the booklet is "The Heavenly Father's Great Name"<br><br>I had been told by a pastor that Jesus wasn't His name, but I had never given the matter too much thought until I read this booklet. I think the authors have a point.<br><br>
In reply to:Yes, Christ has many names in the Bible, Son of God, Son of Man, Word, Lion of Judah, King of Kings etc., but Jesus isn't one of them, and it doesn't even come close to His true name.
And what scholar (?) did you read this from?
] Is Jesus Really Jesus?
The name Joshua, a contracted form of Jehoshua (yehoshua), which also appears in the form Jeshua (yeshua, Neh 8:17), signifies “Yahweh is deliverance” or “salvation,” and is [color:red]formed on the analogy of many Israelite names, as Jehoiakim (yehoyaqim), “Yahweh exalteth,” Jehohanan (yehochanan), “Yahweh is gracious,” Elishua or Elisha (elishua, elisha), “God is deliverance,” Elizur (elitsur), “God is a rock,” etc. In the narrative of the mission of the spies in Nu 13, the name is given as Hoshea (hoshea, 13:8, 16; compare Dt 32:44 ), which is changed by Moses to Joshua (Nu 13:16). In the passage in Deuteronomy, however, the earlier form of the name is regarded by Dr. Driver (Commentary in the place cited.) as an erroneous reading.
The Greek form of the name is Jesus (Iesous, Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8, the Revised Version (British and American) “Joshua,” but the King James Version “Jesus” in both passages), and this form appears even in the passages cited above from Nehemiah and Deuteronomy. In Nu 13:8, 16, however, Septuagint has [Hause]. The name occurs in later Jewish history, e.g. as that of the owner of the field in which the ark rested after its return from the land of the Philistines (1 Sam 6:14, 18), and appears to have become especially frequent after the exile (Ezr 2:40; Zec 3:1 ab, etc.). It is also found (Jeshua) with a local signification as the name of one of the “villages” in Southern Judea, where the repatriated Jews dwelt after their return from Babylon (Neh 11:26).
So what is Jesus' name? JESUS
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: 1915 Edition. Edited by James Orr. Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1999.
There may be others, but I can think of only one group which demands that the name of God be something particular. That group is the JW's who say that the "name of God" is Jehovah. The argument for this is ludicrous, since as you are probably more than aware, the Hebrew is but four consonants and no vowels. Thus it could be either Jehovah or Yahweh. And, there are many other names which are ascribed to God throughout the Old and New Testaments.<br><br>I have had two Reformed pastors who DEMANDED the term Yahweh be used...not Lord, not Jehovah. Hence why I brought this up.<br><br>Blessings,<br>Steve
In reply to:Jesus/Yahshua has always existed as the second person in the trinity, and always will. He is, was and always will be God.
Unfortunately, this is a popular belief and one that is 100% erroneous. Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth) has NOT always existed as the second person of the Trinity. In fact, Jesus Christ has not always existed. This is one of the FUNDAMENTAL doctrines of historic Christianity. The SON is eternally God and the second person of the Trinity..... !! But the historical Jesus was BORN at a specific date in history and was non-existent prior to that date. This is the very point that the apostle John wrote concerning the identity of the man Christ Jesus in the first chapter of his gospel. I've pointed this out on numerous occasions on this Board and elsewhere but I suppose it bears repeating: The "WORD" in John 1:1 is the SON of God; [not "Jesus"] ...... the second person of the Trinity Who is very God of very God, one with the Father and the Spirit etc., etc. He, the SON, the eternal and one true God took upon Himself human flesh and dwelt upon the earth for some 33 years. This act is called the INCARNATION and this is what John 1:14 is speaking about.
John 1:14 (ASV) "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."
The SON became flesh, etc.....
Now, if one is still wanting to insist that the "Word" in John 1:1 is "Jesus" (or to accommodate you, Yeshua), then the 14th verse becomes total nonsense, for it would then read:
John 1:14 (DSV = Devised Standard Version) "And the Yeshua (Jesus) became flesh [Yeshua (Jesus)], and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."
Jesus didn't become Jesus and dwelt among us. The SON of God became flesh and dwelt among us IN THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. (cf. Phil 2:6-11; 1Tim 3:16). Notice also the promise given of His coming:
Isaiah 9:6 (KJV) "For unto us [color:blue]a child is born, unto us [color:purple]a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
The "Son" is eternal, the "child" was born. At the incarnation the eternal God was joined with an earthly man to become the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
The Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
PS... I wouldn't have let that booklet written by some Messianic Jews influence me to the point it has you. "Insous" is the Greek, not "Yeshua". The translators have done right. If you are able to translate Greek better than 100's of thousands of those who have gone before you, then perhaps you have missed your calling and should consider teaching Greek at the University Level? ]
John 1:14<br><br>the Word became flesh: Jesus Christ was unique, for He was God from all eternity and yet joined Himself to sinful humanity in the incarnation. The God-man possessed all the attributes of deity (Phil. 2:6) and the attributes common to humanity (apart from sin), and He will exist forever as the God-man in His resurrected body (Acts 1:11; Rev. 5:6). Only the God-man could be an adquate Savior; for He must be human in order to be able to suffer and die, and He must be God to make that death effective as a payment for sin. The use of the word flesh contradicts the Gnostic teaching that pure deity could not be united with flesh, which was regarded as entirely evil. <br>_________________________________________________<br><br>The word (Logos) became flesh. Christ, the eternal Logos, who is God, came to earth as man. Yet in doing so, He did not merely "appear" like a man; He became one (cf. Phil. 2:5-9), Humanity, in other words, was added to Christ' deity. And yet Christ, in becoming "flesh", did not change; so perhaps the word "became" (egento) should be understood as "took to Himself" or "arrived on the scene as."....Jesus' sonship is unique for He is eternal and is of the same essence as the Father. The glorious revelation of God which the Logos displayed was full of grace and truth, that is, it was agracious and truthful revelation (cf. John 1:17).<br><br>___________________________<br>This will claify the issue.
The four Hebrew letters (for God the Father) when transliterated into English are written "YHWH" (Yahweh) the shorter form "Yah"<br><br>Yah indicates His (the Son's) Father family connections<br><br>The last part "shua" which means "saves" indicates the meaning and the purpose of His mission.<br><br>Therefore, the name would be: Yahshua<br><br>There now, see how sinple it is!
[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] So your saying that the Greek text actually uses the name Yahshua rather than the Greek Iesous.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
