Debate on the Name Yahshua

I though where does he get this name?

Then I went to (Issues) on the same sight, and I found the Bible quote:

But [Yahshua] answered and said to them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' 3 "And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? (Mt 16:2-4)

Then I thought, did Eric take a well known Bible text, cross out the name “Jesus” and write in “Yahshua” ?

Or is there really a Bible that reads this way in Mt 16:2-4?

If so please tell me what translation it is from?

Rich Kelsey

I've noticed that for quite sometime now, you have demonstrated an uncanny knack for changing almost any discussion into a promo for your book. As annoying as that can be, I think I liked that pattern better than this effort to change the subject.

I don't think you're as ignorant of this as you feign, but the Simple Truth website offers the following explanation of the point you raised:

"...We respect everyone we know enough to strive speak and spell their names accurately and see no reason to deny the same to the two most important figures in our life: Our Father and God, Yahweh, and our Lord and Savior, Yahshua. RESPECT is the main issue, not the spelling and pronunciation. We grant the same regard we give on this matter, that is, that how we address or refer to someone is only an issue between the two parties and, therefore, no one else's concern."

If you are really interested, there's a few other related articles at the link below, plus the web is full of all kinds of info from various perspectives from people who esteem such things much more highly than us, both pro and con.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find the part in AU post where he was doing a book promo. Do you agree with the following copy/paste, because I noticed that you are still using the English word Father.

Home > Dictionaries > Baker's Evangelical Dictionary > Fatherhood of God
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology

Fatherhood of God

Throughout the Bible we find God portrayed as a Father. This portrayal, however, is surprisingly rare in the Old Testament. There God is specifically called the Father of the nation of Israel (Deut 32:6; Isa 63:16; [twice] 64:8; Jer 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal 1:6; 2:10) or the Father of certain individuals (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; Psalm 68:5; 89:26) only fifteen times. (At times the father imagery is present although the term "Father" is not used [Exod 4:22-23; Deut 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; Psalm 103:13; Jer 3:22; 31:20; Hosea 11:1-4; Mal 3:17]). This metaphor for God may have been avoided in the Old Testament due to its frequent use in the ancient Near East where it was used in various fertility religions and carried heavy sexual overtones. The avoidance of this description for God can still be found in the intertestamental literature. There its use is also rare: Apocrypha ( Wis 2:16; 14:3; Tob 13:4; Sir 23:1, 4; 51:10); Pseudepigrapha ( Jub 1:24, 28; 19:29; 3 Macc 5:7; 6:4, 8; T. Levi 18:6; T. Judah 24:2); and Dead Sea Scrolls (1 QH 9:35f.).

The teaching of the Fatherhood of God takes a decided turn with Jesus, for "Father" was his favorite term for addressing God. It appears on his lips some sixty-five times in the Synoptic Gospels and over one hundred times in John. The exact term Jesus used is still found three times in the New Testament (Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15-16; Gal 4:6) but elsewhere the Aramaic term Abba is translated by the Greek pater [pathvr]. The uniqueness of Jesus' teaching on this subject is evident for several reasons. For one, the rarity of this designation for God is striking. There is no evidence in pre-Christian Jewish literature that Jews addressed God as "Abba. " A second unique feature about Jesus' use of Abba as a designation for God involves the intimacy of the term. Abba was a term little children used when they addressed their fathers. At one time it was thought that since children used this term to address their fathers the nearest equivalent would be the English term "Daddy." More recently, however, it has been pointed out that Abba was a term not only that small children used to address their fathers; it was also a term that older children and adults used. As a result it is best to understand Abba as the equivalent of "Father" rather than "Daddy."

A third unique feature of Jesus' teaching concerning the Fatherhood of God is that the frequency of this metaphor is out of all proportion to what we find elsewhere in the Old Testament and other Jewish literature. (Note 165+ times in the four Gospels compared to only 15 times in the entire Old Testament!) This was not justa way Jesus taught his disciples to address God; it was the way. They were to pray, "Father, hallowed by your name" (Luke 11:2). This is why the Greek-speaking Gentile churches in Galatia and Rome continued to address God as Abba. They used this foreign title for God because Jesus had used it and taught his followers to do so. It should be pointed out that although Jesus addressed God as "Father" and taught his disciples to do the same, he never referred to God as "our Father." (Matt 6:9 is not an exception, for here Jesus is teaching his disciples how they [plural] should pray. ) His "Sonship" was different from that of his followers. He was by nature the Son; they were "sons" through adoption. This is clearly seen in John 20:17 in the distinction between "my" God and "your" God. It is also seen in Matthew 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6; 7:21; 10:32-33, where Jesus refers to "your" (singular and plural) and "my" father but never "our" father.

Because of Jesus' use of this metaphor, it is not surprising that the rest of the New Testament also emphasizes the Fatherhood of God. In the Pauline letters God is described as "Father" over forty times. It occurs in blessings (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3), doxologies (Rom 15:6), thanksgivings (2 Cor 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2-3), prayers (Col 1:12), exhortations (Eph 5:20), and creeds (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6). For Paul this fatherhood is based not so much on God's role in creation but rather on the redemption and reconciliation he has made available in Jesus Christ. This is why Paul refers to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31). It is through the work of Christ that God invites us to call him "Abba, Father." It is through Christ that grace and peace have resulted and we have become God's children (Rom 8:12-16; 1 Peter 1:3-4; 1 John 3:1).

The description of God as "father" is under attack today in certain circles. It is charged by some that this leads to a false view that God is a male. This criticism should be taken seriously in that God is not a "man" (Num 23:19). He is a Spirit (John 4:24) without sexual parts. When God is referred as a father, this is simply the use of a metaphor in which he is likened to a kind and loving father. Elsewhere God's love and care can be compared to that of a concerned and caring mother (Isa 49:14-16; Luke 13:34). Yet to avoid the metaphor of father as a description and designation for God is to lose sight of the fact that Jesus chose this as his metaphor to address God and that he taught this as the metaphor by which his disciples should address God. It also loses sight of the continuity established by the use of this metaphor with those who have called God "Father" over the centuries. These include the disciples; the earliest congregations (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6); the earliest church councils ("I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth …"); and Christian churches all over the globe who over the centuries have prayed together "Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name."

Robert H. Stein

See also God; God, Names of

Bibliography. J. Barr, JTS39 (1988): 28-47; R. Hamerton-Kelly, God the Father; J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus; J. Scott Lidgett, The Fatherhood of God; W. Elwell, TAB, pp. 42-44.

I would think that if you noticed that I referred to God as ‘Father’ that it might be fairly obvious that I don’t have any problem with doing so. As to the article’s reference to the Fatherhood of God as a metaphor, however, I don’t see it that way. I understand the Almighty God of the Bible to be quite literally the Father of my Lord Yahshua. On a side note, I take the lack of use of the term ‘our Father’ by Yahshua with regard to the apostles to merely indicate that the Spirit had not yet been given to them.

Hi Rich,

Similarly, I had the same thing happen to me once a long time ago. I was actually reading a dictionary and looked up "Jesus". I don't recall the actual dictionary, but it might have been a Websters Unabridged. Anyhow, I saw something like this for the names origin:

[Middle English, from Late Latin Iêsus, from Greek Iêsous, from Hebrew Yêšûà', from Yèhôšûà', Joshua.]

It made me also stop and think. If Jesus was a Hebrew, than what name was he actually given? Over the years, studies, and discussions, I've come to accept the simplest form of the name as Yahshua. It may very well be wrong, but it is a lot closer to the name he actually received.

Since there are so many different translations of the Bible out there, I'm sure someone has taken the liberty of placing the name Yahshua where Jesus is, but I don't own one. There are many who bank on the name needing to be absolutely perfect, or you are doomed (such as the sacred name adherents do so often with everything). It seems to me there is one I've heard of, but it hasn't been that important to me to find a copy.

I am quite comfortable using both Jesus and Yahshua interchangably, and do so even when reading the scripture. It is of little significance to me whether others do as I do in this. I know who others are talking about when they say Jesus, and hopefully others would be able to see the reason I say Yahshua as well.

Anyhow, if you had continued to follow a couple of those links, particularily to the "Holy Names" link, you would have found this. I hope this clarifies any misconceptions that may have been planted by some who want to ascribe the Simple Truth Ministries as Sacred Name legalists.

You won't go too far at this site without realizing that we use uncommon forms of both God and the Messiah's names: YHWH or Yahweh and Yahshua, respectively. Unfortunately, because of this people tend to hastily associate us with things that we absolutely don't believe. Thus, please allow me to qualify the purposes of this:

We respect everyone we know enough to strive to speak and spell their names accurately and see no reason to deny the same to the two most important figures in our life: Our Father and God, Yahweh, and our Lord and Savior, Yahshua. RESPECT is the main issue, not the spelling and pronunciation. We grant the same regard we give on this matter, that is, that how we address or refer to someone is only an issue between the two parties and, therefore, no one else's concern.

Although most 'sacred name' groups practice the 'if some is good, more is better' mentality, we see no reason to 'Hebrew-ize' every English rendition of Biblical names. Rather, we prefer to simply communicate with the fewest possible encumbrances on those who we only currently speak OF and not TO.

Also, unlike most 'sacred name' groups, we are not amongst those who render grace ineffective by striving for righteousness under the law.

Hopefully this answers the questions you pose. I would be interested in your feedback on the rest of the article you stopped reading. I think it is quite significant to the "signs of the times".

Eric

Eric,

Thank you for the answer and the spirit in which you gave it.

I was challenging you about changing the biblical text without so much as adding “author paraphrase” to your reference. Example: (Matt. 16:2-4 NIV, Author paraphrase).

I challenged you for a reason. I don’t think it is right to insert the Hebrew spelling of Jesus’ name in the text without manuscript evidence.

Now that you have explained why you do so I understand, yet to me without a note showing that you changed the text, to me it still seem wrong.

Maybe the reason seeing a change in bible text without manuscript evidence bothers me is because for two years I studied Jehovah Witness doctrine and was about to be baptized into the faith when Jeff Mc came to my rescue by showing me, among other things, that they had no right to insert Jehovah into the New Testament over and over again.

There is no early manuscript evidence for this practice yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses have strong reasons for doing so.

They change the name “Lord” to Jehovah wherever it seems to imply God to them and then leave it “Lord” if it clearly points to Christ.

I was challenging you Eric.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t like you.

As Greg put it I was doing a little “sword fighting”.

In Christ,

Rich Kelsey

I guess if you want a legitimate challenge, you'll have to take it up with the original translators who penned Yahshuas Hebrew name as Jesus in Greek.

In the end, I don't think the Lord is concerned one way or the other, but I may be wrong. But if these are the kind of challenges that I'll face by showing respect to Him by trying to say His Hebrew name, I may need to get that translation of the Bible afterall :>)

Actually, I looked at various translations of that verse, and each one varies slightly from translation to translation. I still don't see where I erred, but I respect your language skills better than my own. I'll consider the issue in future writings.

Eric

Eric writes, "I guess if you want a legitimate challenge, you'll have to take it up with the original translators who penned Yahshuas Hebrew name as Jesus in Greek. "
Comment: I don't have to take anything up with those who wrote Jesus in Greek under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is those who change it who are taking something up with the inspired writers of the NT. I would like to know anyone who knows a HIGHER or more accurate way than, say, Paul, or Luke etc.
Lanny

Lanny,

None of us English speaking/writing folks write Yahshua's name as recorded in the Greek NT autographs. Though it is a more or less private issue, my difference is with the English translators. I do not doubt the Greek spelling of His name, but doubt seriously that His friends the apostles spoke it any differently than the angel who pronounced it first.

I think His name is better represented by a reasoned transcription rather than a series transliterations that make it represent something that sounds nothing like the name He was given.

Like I originally said to Rich, I trust his language skills better than my own :>)

I do not question Paul, Luke, or any other the other original authors of the letters that are now epistles and gospel accounts. I'm not challenging them AT ALL.

My query has to do with when the Hebrew name of the Messiah was translated (transliterated) into Greek Ieosus, or Jesus. (Guess I ought to brush up on this and be ready to give full account when asked...Geez!)

I'll be the first to tell you I am no scholar on when and how the letters were written, in what language, when they were translated, transliterated, etc. All I was simply saying was Yahshua was from all indications the closest Hebrew name given to the Son of God. It was a Hebrew name, not Greek. But I'm willing to be shown where I am wrong in this.

Like I said before, I don't count this as any significant issue for others, only for myself. So if you can shed some light on the fact that the angel proclaimed his name to be a Greek name, rather than a Hebrew one, then please do. If you can show me where his disciples and apostles called him by a Greek name rather than a Hebrew one, then I'm all ears.

Eric

Since the Sacred writers thought to use the pagan Greek language in writing their accounts and wrote the name Jesus in Greek I see no reason to not use the english form, Jesus. There is no virtue in the Hebrew name above any other language. His name was YHWH the Savior.
Lanny

George Lamsa argued that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. While his views are not accepted by most scholars there is a church that holds this viewpoint. Thus, he tranlated the Peshitta into English and not the Greek. I notice he uses the name Jesus.
Lanny

I call him Jesus.

I have a cordial relatinship with several sacred name adherents in our area. We have never had a serious discussion about the issue, because they can't answer my query about why the Holy Spirit calls the Messiah "Iesous," but they call him "Yahshua."

ONE THING I KNOW

When I was 18 years old, before I began to study with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, before I even believed in God or a historical Christ, I was taken to Hell’s gate.

My belief in God and the devil occurred not by faith but from this experience.

And when I cried out to God to deliver me from this place of judgment the name Jesus was given to me and the name Jesus delivered me.

The Spirit of God chose to use the name Jesus.

I will always call Christ Jesus

I love that name.

Rich Kelsey

I don't see any reason for YOU to "not use the english form, Jesus," either, but neither do I see any reason for me to deviate from calling Him 'Yahshua'. I don't see it as an issue of virtue.

The following is an excerpt from a conversation I had a few months ago:

...I'd like to comment on the underlying issue alluded to here: transliteration vs. transcription. Because transliteration is directed at spelling, it is a poor tool for conveying correct pronunciation of proper names from one language to another.

A good example is the well known Duke University basketball coach, Mike Krzyzewski, which is properly pronounced 'sha-shef-skee', not 'kri-zoo-skee' as one would pronounce it using English phonetics. No English speaking person would pronounce his name correctly based on the spelling, nor would they spell it correctly based on the pronunciation.

As long as we have reliable information on both spelling and pronunciation, the proper thing to do would be to spell it 'Kryzewski' and pronounce it 'Shashefski', but what if we didn't have complete and reliable information? We would be forced to judge how we spell and pronounce his name based on the best information we had available.

Similarly, we really don't have reliable or complete information on either the spelling or the pronunciation of the Messiah's name in Hebrew or Aramaic. This forces us to judge both how we spell His name in English and pronounce it with our English trained tongues based on the information available.

Since modern English didn't even exist 2,000 years ago, the fact is that there is no "correct" English spelling until and unless a divine mandate is given to that effect. For example, only Mike Kryzewski or his ancestors have authority to determine the "correct" English spelling of their name. Likewise, the only "correct" spelling of the Messiah's name would be how HE spelled it in whatever language He may have rendered it in His day. Anything else can be no more than conjecture. Transliterating previously rendered transliterations may be a viable approach, but not the only one.

Another approach would be to attempt to discern the correct original pronunciation and transcribe an English spelling from that, which is my personal preference. If my name were the issue, that's how I'd want it done. For instance, if people of a foreign language would pronounce a transliterated 'P-h-i-l' as 'P-woo', but would pronounce 'F-e-l' as 'Phil', I'd choose the latter.

That is why I weigh SOUND over SPELLING when it comes to the Messiah's name, and why I believe transcription a better approach than transliteration. Of course, since we have no recordings of the true pronunciation of the Messiah's name, even the very best efforts are still subject to uncertainty, regardless of what approach one takes. This inherent uncertainty is one of many reasons why the issue is not worthy of the dogmatism often attributed to it.

In the end, we will all be judged on such things based on the judgment we render ourselves. I give what I'd like to receive from others with regard to names -- a reasonable effort to get them right. I don't get upset over innocent mispronunciations or misspellings of my name, but could take exception to someone intentionally or even negligently doing so. Because my Lord lives and I know better, this is why I won't call him 'Jesus' simply to appease others. Neither do I worry about my rendering of His name being less than perfect, though, for He knows I seek to honor Him in this and other tangible ways.

Modern English didn't exist 2,000 years ago, but koine Greek did, and that is the language in which the New Testament was written. In that language, the Holy Spirit referred to the saviour as "Iesous", and His name has been translated to blend with other cultures ever since.

If I moved to Mexico, I could introduce myself as "Steven" or I could choose to identify with the people by being called "Estaben." Nothing would be wrong with doing either. The point is that God's Son clearly chose the latter option, and is honored when His name is used reverently by any culture in their own language.

Are you suggesting, therefore, that the angel who first pronounced His name, Mary and Joseph, and the apostles called the Messiah (phonetically) 'I-ee-sous'? If so, why don't we pronounce it the same way?

I agree that the SPELLING of His name has gone through a series of transcriptions and transliterations resulting in the English spelling 'Jesus'. I don't think that serves as a valid reason for PRONOUNCING it in a way that we know to be vastly different than how it was given, but those are just my personal convictions.

I still say 'Shesheski' when I read 'Kryzewski' simply because I KNOW better than to pronounce his name as the English spelling implies.

Nevertheless, I've never suggested that the One I call Yahshua was dishonered by being called otherwise, though many have suggested that my convictions somehow dishonor Him. Or, perhaps, it is simply my non-conformance with their own ways that troubles those people; its hard to say. I suspect that unnecessary quibbling over words is more likely to dishonor His name than how we pronounce it.

The whole sentiment of this smacks way too much of the same exclusionary tactics of those who hold to "orthodox Christology" towards those who dare to differ.

Lanny,

I never have promoted any such idea that there is virtue in the Hebrew name above any other language. There are groups who do believe that the name must be exact, but I don't belong to those groups.

I respect your reasons for using the name Jesus. I do not believe the Lord holds us in any special favor by calling him either Jesus, or Yahshua. To me, I say both interchangably, depending on who I'm talking with, or what I'm talking about.

I for the life of me cannot figure how this has become such a big deal! Usually I'm arguing the other direction against sacred name adherents who want to tell me how everyone who calls the Lord by Jesus is doomed for hell. Now, I find myself being tasked for defending my neutral position because I say Yahshua! Seems to be more of straining at a gnat than anything if you want my honest opinion.

Eric

I feel using the name Yahshua can too easily draw attention from more important issues. Such as the whole reason this came up with Richard in how the name Yahshua was used. I believe for newer Christians it can easily cause confusion because your basis to call Jesus Yahshua does not seem overly solid. Not that you do not have some legitimate basis to do so but that is not the point I am trying to get at.

If the Greek New Testament gives us Jesus wouldn't it make the most sense to just stick with that? Is God really concerned if we don't have the exact pronunciation right if we understand the identity tied to the common English pronunciation? The identity of Jesus is clearly portrayed in the Bible as Gods son who was full of love, grace, and hope. He came to save those that were lost, bring hope and life to all mankind, and bring honor to His Father. To avoid potential divisions why not take something somewhat obscure as to transliteration and/or pronunciation and stick with the closest scholarly estimate we have from the Greek as translated in just about every English version of the Bible? If 98 to 99 % of all English speaking Christians say Jesus why not save yourself the trouble and potential conflict? At the very least wouldn't it be possible to relate to other Christians where they are at in their understanding and use the name Jesus? I know you said you do that but it seems only in part.

I agree although and do not feel it should be an issue to divide people and accept the fact that you use the name Yahshua if you continue to be convicted to do so. I just think it is potentially an unnecessary distraction.

Hi Keith,

You know, I understand what you are saying, but really, we're all adults here. I seriously doubt anyone will dispute that an angel pronounced the name of the Son of God as a Hebrew name. I'm simply honoring that, and not desiring to be divisive at all.

I understand your concern for new Christians, and as I already said, I use both Jesus and Yahshua interchangably. In fact, my original post in this thread started like this:

Jesus MUST have been mistaken in blessing the true answer to the question.

So Rich wants to challenge my use of the name of Yahshua which is on our website, and you want to say I only use the name Jesus as opposed to Yahshua "in part", and am potentially causing division. This is the same type of pressure I've seen sacred name adherents use in saying you should only use the name Yahshua!

You know, the becoming all things to all people mentality has a two way street amongst brothers. If my explanation isn't good enough, especially amongst seasoned Christians, then I really don't know what to say. I've never forced my conviction in this area on anyone, so I'm not too pleased with the exertion on me to change, regardless of whether 99% of Christianity calls him Jesus or not. About that same percentage calls him God as well, and a large majority of them require others to do so or be ostracized, but that doesn't compel me to do the same.

Eric

"Are you suggesting, therefore, that the angel who first pronounced His name, Mary and Joseph, and the apostles called the Messiah (phonetically) 'I-ee-sous'?"

No, I am not. But clearly the Holy Spirit, when recounting the story, took the liberty to Hellenize the pronunciation as "Ya-soos", or some such.

"If so, why don't we pronounce it the same way?"

My logic goes like this: If the Holy Spirit thought it fitting to change the pronunciation from Ya-shoo-ah to Ya-soos, when communicating to the Hellenistic world, it sets a precedent that has led to the Savior revealing himself to millions of English speaking peoples as "Jesus."

The point about Duke's basketball merits consideration - meaning we should look for any evidence that Greek speaking people have ever pronounced "Iesous" as "Yah-shua." I'll bet my beloved Lazy Boy recliner no such evidence exists; perhaps someone could check with Themes Kulurys, Greek minister formerly associated with the Chapel.

"The whole sentiment of this smacks way too much of the same exclusionary tactics of those who hold to 'orthodox Christology' towards those who dare to differ."

There are compelling reasons to reject orthodox Christology, as you ably demonstrate. There are no compelling reasons to de-Anglicise the saviour's name - but many good ones not to do so.

If the gospel was spread to the Greek speaking population via the written Scriptures, I guess I could go along with your reasoning. However, it was spread orally through Peter, Paul, etc., who I doubt pronounced His name according to Greek phonics, regardless of how they later spelled it in Greek. Since you are not claiming the apostles spoke His name any different than it was given, then the burden of proof most naturally falls to you regarding your claim that the Holy Spirit introduced a new and different pronunciation through the Greek spelling. Otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the original Greek initiates of the Church spoke His name exactly as they’d heard it from the apostles.

The fact that you see no compelling reasons for me to call my Lord ‘Yahshua’ rather than ‘Jesus’ would only be worthy of consideration if you actually had a legitimate place to impose your will upon me, which you don’t. Your view of "needless non-conformance" is just a euphemistic way of stigmatizing someone over their differences with you. I do not consider maintaining a good conscience before God "needless" in the least, even if it upsets folks who can't handle my own personal convictions. Such things are only divisive issues to those who don’t truly regard Yahshua’s Headship over all men.

Hello Eric,

I am glad that we had this dialog.

My main point still stands that I believe one should properly document a Bible quote. That was all I was really addressing in this thread.

I certainly am not trying to force you to change the way you refer to our Christ.

I for one did learn why you believe the way you do. I do not agree with all of the reasons. But, hey, who agrees with everything I say?

Again, thank you for the dialog and the sweet spirit which you manifested.

Love, in Christ,

Rich

I know what you were addressing, but I was responding to Keith contention that you were addressing something totally different. Who knows? Maybe you were addressing both concerns?

Anyhow, it seems like a big to do over such a minor thing, but thats ok. Gnats must have some purpose for being a part of creation :>)

Peace,

Eric

"Your view of 'needless non-conformance' is just a euphemistic way of stigmatizing someone over their differences with you."

This is completely uncalled for .... especially considering:

1.) your opposition to the use of innuendos.

2.) my unequivocal endorsement of your abilities to refute orthodox Christology.

You claim to want to "discuss issues, not be one." But any disagreement (not just from me, from anyone) with your position, however respectful of your talent, evokes a personal attack from you that reminds many of us of our former pastor. And that is going to make YOU the issue, since you're the one who dismisses the reasoned arguments of another, by assigning motives.

Grow some skin.

In futility,

SM

Steve,

I understood what Phil wrote as not being a personal attack, but rather his interpretation of your chosen use of the phrase "needless non-conformance". I took your post title the same way.

The idea I got from reading needless non-conformance was that somehow because of our own personal convictions on this issue, we are not conforming to what others want us to do. Thus, it IS an indirect way of saying we are set apart in a negative sense because of this name issue.

Have we ever stated that you should conform to what we practice in regards to the name of the Son of God? No, not ever.

In our plant, we have a specific place set aside for materials that are marked as non-conforming. They don't meet the standards of the industry. By being placed in this area, they are rendered useless, second rate, and good for nothing but the trash. I for one don't want to be stigmatized and placed in the area of "non-conforming" because I somehow am not meeting someone's idea of what being "conforming" is.

Rather that we follow our convictions of our heart, rather than the prodding of men who want to label us as needless non-conformists if we don't yield to their will. Especially over such a minor issue!

Hope that explains my take on it.

Eric

Well, I guess that covers that...

Now would you care to deal with the substantive challenge I gave for you to support your claim that the Holy Spirit changed the pronunciation of the Messiah's name with the writing of the Greek NT?

Hello Eric,

I am glad that we had this dialog.

My main point still stands that I believe one should properly document a Bible quote. That was all I was really addressing in this thread.

I certainly am not trying to force you to change the way you refer to our Christ.

I for one did learn why you believe the way you do. I do not agree with all of the reasons. But, hey, who agrees with everything I say?

Again, thank you for the dialog and the sweet spirit which you manifested.

Love, in Christ,

Rich

I know what you were addressing, but I was responding to Keith contention that you were addressing something totally different. Who knows? Maybe you were addressing both concerns?

Anyhow, it seems like a big to do over such a minor thing, but thats ok. Gnats must have some purpose for being a part of creation :>)

Peace,

Eric

I don't know what grammar and style manuals say, but all Eric did was insert a proper name for a pronoun in a quoted excerpt for the sake of clarity. This is commonly practiced with no further indication than enclosure of the author insertion in brackets, as Eric did.

If this is improper, as you say, then Eric is in good company with a whole lot of others. In my view, it would only be improper if he either changed the meaning, didn't identify his modification to the original text, or was otherwise unclear.

Your point may still stand in your own mind, but I'm not convinced of any impropriety whatsoever.

All I was addressing was the fact that it brings questions (regardless of what the question is).

Does the Greek NT actually give indication that what the Angel said was the Hebrew pronunciation? Or is it the same as the rest of the NT? If it's the same and it is simply speculation you could very well be wrong and making a wrong assumption in my opinion.

I never said not to use the name Yahshua, in fact if your heart is convicted to do so, please do. I was simply stating that (if your heart lets you) it might be best to stick with the common pronunciation to avoid unnecessary conflict or cause extra confusion. Part of my point included that I don't think it matters to God in as much as we are identifiying the name with the person shown to be the son of God in the Bible.

Again follow your heart, I won't and haven't wrote you off because you say Yahshua. Although it will bring questions on occasion, it might be a good idea to go through this routine now and again because new people might wonder why you say Yahshua (maybe a new Christian wouldn't even know who you are talking about).

Keith

“Does the Greek NT actually give indication that what the Angel said was the Hebrew pronunciation? Or is it the same as the rest of the NT? If it's the same and it is simply speculation you could very well be wrong and making a wrong assumption in my opinion.”

The fact that the Messiah’s given name sounded closer to ‘Yahshua’ than ‘Jesus’ is pretty much common knowledge supported by many authoritative references and refuted by none that I know of. Though some variances in exactly how it was pronounced exist, virtually all informed people agree that it started with a ‘Y’ sound and ended with a ‘shua’ sound. The variation we have adopted is the product of considerable research into the matter, far from speculation or assumption.

“Although it will bring questions on occasion, it might be a good idea to go through this routine now and again because new people might wonder why you say Yahshua (maybe a new Christian wouldn't even know who you are talking about).”

I agree that it is probably good to be given the opportunity to explain ourselves, as we commonly do amongst less informed and less familiar crowds.

In all my years, I’ve had all kinds of problems with this over people who think I ought to say ‘Yehoshua’ or some other variation, abandon generic terms like ‘God’ and ‘Lord’, call Jeremiah ‘Yeremiyah’, etc. I’ve also been challenged by many who find it easy to trivialize my personal convictions and regard my supposed “needless non-conformance” unacceptable. I've answered a few questions from curious people, too, but I have never, ever had a problem with someone not knowing exactly who I’m speaking about when I say ‘Yahshua’...not once.

You are right, I could be making a wrong assumption on my part that the angel gave Mary and Joseph a Hebrew name pronunciated correctly. For all we really know, the angel spoke in an angelic tongue which was heard by Mary and Joseph!

Be that as it may, I'll stick with Webster on this one unless given some valid reason otherwise. The root of the name Jesus goes back to its Hebrew origin. After many many discussions (and yet another one to add to the list), I have not been convinced that Jesus was the name given to the Son of God by Mary and Joseph. I'm settled on the matter, everyone elses concerns notwithstanding.

I do appreciate the concerns you raise, and I do exercise quite a bit of restraint when using the name unknown or not universally recognized by most...Yahshua. Yes, my convictions are pretty loose, so I'm not bound by some unseen hand that says to never use the name Jesus :>)

See what reading a Websters dictionary can do? I'm going to suggest that the next edition leave out root origins of words and names. It can only cause extra confusion rather than clarity, knowledge, and understanding!

May Yahweh bless you all in Jesus name!

Eric

Many will be relieved to know that I’m not going to post for at least another 96 hours. There is no way for me to maintain perspective any other way.

The “many” will also be chagrined that I’m firing a few more volleys in parting. But you knew you were walking into the line of fire when you clicked your mouse, didn’t you?

Yes, you certainly did.

Phil, the man who eschews innuendos, said, “The whole sentiment of this smacks way too much of the same exclusionary tactics of those who hold to ‘orthodox Christology’ towards those who dare to differ.” With this, those who differ with Phil on one issue are stigmatized as being “exclusionary” and lacking tolerance for “those who dare to differ.”

My reply was: “There are compelling reasons to reject orthodox Christology, as you ably demonstrate. There are no compelling reasons to de-Anglicise the saviour's name - but many good ones not to do so.”….

Which Phil characterizes thusly: “The fact that you see no compelling reasons for me to call my Lord ‘Yahshua’ rather than ‘Jesus’ would only be worthy of consideration if you actually had a legitimate place to impose your will upon me, which you don’t. Your view of ‘needless non-conformance’ is just a euphemistic way of stigmatizing someone over their differences with you.”

This is from a man, who decries all use of innuendo, and has publicly called someone else “delusional.” (disclaimer: I never renounced use of innuendo - but am willing to back it up when challenged – email me)

Phil has changed the issue from translation, transliteration, and inspiration… to himself. My view is that there are no compelling reasons for ANYONE to use ‘Yahshua’, not that I have “a place to impose [my] will..” (more innuendo from the man who eschews innudendo). “Needless non-conformance” is not euphemistic. Euphemism: "the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be thought to be offensive, harsh , or blunt." I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. Opposition to orthodox Christology is “needful non-conformance.” De-Anglisation of the saviour’s name is “needless non-conformance” - that is the opposite of “euphemistic”, because it is not indirect or vague, but is blunt, and (to some) offensive and harsh.

Many who agree with me about Phil do not participate in this board because of that fact. Not ONE OF THEM came to their conclusions because of me. ALL were persuaded by their own interaction with Phil.

I have felt some obligation to bear witness to the truth, as I see it.

Those who want to blow off my testimony don’t have to answer to me.

“It is good that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow to fond of it.” (Robert E. Lee)

Faites L’Amour Pas Las Guerre.

Off to church with me,

Steve

ntt

(I've noticed that for quite sometime now, you have demonstrated an uncanny knack for changing almost any discussion into a promo for your book. As annoying as that can be, I think I liked that pattern better than this effort to change the subject.)

This was taken from your above post. I am still trying to find a book promo reference in any of these posts. Also, I asked if you use the name Abba in place of Father?

1. I ignored your first mention of my reference to book promos because I had already specifically excluded the message I was responding to by referring to it as a different sort of changing the subject.

2. I find nothing in your original post to the effect of asking if I used the name Abba in place of Father. You mentioned that you had noticed that I still used the term ‘Father’ then non-specifically asked my comments on the lengthy article on the Fatherhood of God you pasted in. Nevertheless, the answer to your question is no, I do not normally refer to my Father as Abba.

Now would you care to deal with the substantive challenge I gave for you to support your claim that the Holy Spirit changed the pronunciation of the Messiah's name with the writing of the Greek NT?

Changed from what exactly? You admit you don't know exactly what the pronunciation was. I have to side with Steve here. His point is 2 -fold:

1) The documented Name we have is the Greek "Iesous".

2) The Holy Spirit, through the God-breathed scriptures chose, as Paul chose, to be all things to all men, rather than being overtly Aramaic to the Greeks.  It was more important to the HS to reach and teach.

I have no problem with the name "Yahshua" per se. I happen to have been quite fascinated with Jesus' Name when I first learned about it. It is a wonderful Name. But I must say that if you insist on using a Name that is not commonly used, the various reactions from various Christians come with the territory. And since you admit that you don't have the name "Yahshua" documented as His Name and no one really knows the actual pronunciation, I find it odd that you see yourself presenting a "substantive challenge" to Steve. His argument is in print. Your isn't.

If the gospel was spread to the Greek speaking population via the written Scriptures, I guess I could go along with your reasoning. However, it was spread orally through Peter, Paul, etc., who I doubt pronounced His name according to Greek phonics

You "doubt"? This doesn't sound very precise to me. Perhaps they DID speak Greek. After all, Koine Greek was the common language in the area at that time. Evidence? Well, the fact that the scriptures were in Greek is a pretty good indication that they may have very well spoke Greek too.

I liked Eric's comments earlier in this thread when he said, "I am quite comfortable using both Jesus and Yahshua interchangably, and do so even when reading the scripture. It is of little significance to me whether others do as I do in this."

Changed from what exactly?

The Hebrew/Aramaic form already determined to be the form of its pronunciation by Yahshua and the apostles. If you want to challenge that, you may, but Steve already opted not to.

You admit you don't know exactly what the pronunciation was.

So what? We have been persuaded that ‘Yahshua’ is the best we can do, and that He regards our hearts in this.

His point is 2 -fold:

You then proceed to completely ignore the current point, while feigning to present a synopsis of Steve’s argument. If you want to argue for Steve’s claim that the Holy Spirit changed the pronunciation of Yahshua’s name with the writing of the Greek NT, be my guest. My arguments, which you also ignored, have been made to that point, so the mantle is there for you to take if you want it.

But I must say that if you insist on using a Name that is not commonly used, the various reactions from various Christians come with the territory.

I agree, but that is an unfortunate consequence of following one’s convictions, not a reason to do or change anything. Intolerance over such things is no less wrong, either.

I find it odd that you see yourself presenting a "substantive challenge" to Steve. His argument is in print. Your isn't.

So you say…on the heels of misrepresenting his case and ignoring mine.

After all, Koine Greek was the common language in the area at that time. Evidence? Well, the fact that the scriptures were in Greek is a pretty good indication that they may have very well spoke Greek too.

If you are suggesting that Yahshua’s given name was (phonetically) ‘I-ee-sous’ or whatever, I would say that your opinions are at odds with scholarship in general.

I liked those comments of Eric’s, too, as they reflect my exact sentiments.

Yup, good point.
Lanny

The simple NT text proves the Greek form of the name was used. If it was good enough for the Holy Ghost it is good enough for me.
Those that use Yashua or some such do so for reasons that I believe are mistaken. God has NOT preserved any "correct" pronunciation of His name. What has been preserved is the written form.
Lanny

You are certainly welcome to believe what you want, though to generalize that our reasons for calling our Lord ‘Yahshua’ are mistaken without offering any reason to accept that claim is a bit much. I guess I could say the same about you calling Him ‘Jesus’, but I’m determined to give respect to others on the level I’d like to receive it.

The point at hand is pronunciation. I’ve made the case that the name of the Messiah was communicated by an angel to Joseph and Mary, then given to Yahshua, then to the apostles and, lastly, to the Greek-speaking Gentiles. We also know that the earliest initiates of Christianity (be they Jew or Greek) came into the Church through hearing the apostles’ spoken word. Yet, you want us to believe that the pronunciation of His name was rendered according to a phonetical rendering of a spelling that followed after the gospel was orally delivered to the Gentiles by the Jewish apostles. No reason has yet been offered for us to accept either this claim or the further implication that the Holy Spirit changed the Messiah’s name.

The point is that as is typical of names, it is likely that the spelling was a written transliteration from one language to another that did not affect the common pronunciation that had already been transmitted orally. As I said, you say ‘krizewski’, I say ‘sheshefski’.

The fact that the apostles penned ‘iesous’ in Greek has no real bearing on how His name was spoken by them and whoever else believed by hearing their words. That fact that you and others choose to render His name according to a phonetical rendering of the English translators is fine, but it is not supported by the unproven claim that the writing of the Greek NT constitutes a change in the Messiah’s name by the Holy Spirit. ‘Jesus’ is your choice, ‘Yahshua’ is mine, and neither of us can justify calling the other’s reasons for such convictions ‘mistaken’ without inferring a superiority/inferiority relationship between the two positions.

Your give and take here is acceptable to me. What I object to is people claiming to have some "higher revelation" on the pronunciation of the name. God has NOT preserved such. I have no problem with Yahshua. It goes without saying that the average Christian will wonder why this name is used instead of Jesus. And assumptions will be made about the orthodoxy of those that use Yahshua. In the long run it seems that more fruit would be had just using the name Jesus. Especially if it is not such a big deal. Then again, it may be a BIG DEAL...???
Lanny

Hi Lanny,

I hear your objection loud and clear, and I think we've demonstrated that we have not, and do not, claim to have any higher revelation on the pronunciation of the name of the Son of God. And, I know all to well how assumptions are generally made without cause for a wide variety of reasons about other peoples "orthodoxy". I, like you, don't like the superiority complexes of people who think they've got it all figured out.

Relating back to the time when I was first pricked about this may give some light on why this could possibly be a big deal. While in Houston, I attended a small non-denominational church with some really beautiful people in the Lord. It was an odd issue, since the church was so new, and the members had come from a wide variety of denominational backgrounds. All were learning to forbear with the mix of beliefs from their various backgrounds, and were focusing on the things they had in common rather than the things that were potential hot spots.

In my studies and discussions with Phil after seeing this name issue in the dictionary, I came to understand that God's name is Yahweh as he pronounced to Moses, and that it would never change. This made sense to me that God would have one name, and the Son of God a name similar to but not the same as His Fathers.

The bombshell fell within a week after coming to understand this in the form of a Sunday school lesson. Out of the blue, the teacher changed his lessons to a study on the name of God. During the class, he asked the attendees what the name of God is. I raised my hand and stated Yahweh. I was floored when this guy came back and said no, it was Jesus. When I began to try and explain my answer, he began to shout, become forceful, and stated emphatically that the name of God is Jesus, end of discussion. I quietly left the room after the scene he had made. I didn't expect that kind of response, nor did I expect to be told that what God said to Moses was no longer the case.

It may be in this that the big deal arises. I don't see any place where Yahweh has changed His name, and called it a perpetual memorial for all generations. I do not believe Yahshua is the name of God, either. So, it is more than just substituting the name Yahshua in place of Jesus. It is a matter of recognizing God Almighty by His name, and the Son of God by his name, the name given to Him by His God and Father.

This could very well be the reason that it could be a big deal, but not one I'm trying to perpetuate. In my years of conversing with various people of various theological understandings, I've learned to forbear in these minor differences, awaiting the day that clarity is given to all of us over these issues. I have assumed that others do the same, but you are right, it may be a big deal to some who want to make it that way. As it was in that little church in Houston, some espouse the attitude "My way or the highway".

As the Psalmist put it:

Prov 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

I answer the psalmists query one way, others answer it differently. Could this be where the potential big deal lies?

Eric

Hadn't read this post until just now.
To answer... I hear your points and for the most part do not object. In fact, understanding there is even any Name at all is a much more important point. My only concern is that it "sounds" like many other fringe issues that fringe Christians make so much noise about. Especially whenever writing on this board the name Jesus is substituted with the name Yahshua. As I read that I wonder why. Then after hearing the basis behind it it seems to be without any basis at all.
I believe I understand where you are coming from. I don't really have much objection.
The Christian church today is plagued by little idiosyncracies that divide and puff up those that "know" the truth. These kind of issues have many similiar characteristics.
I am still of the opinion that understanding the revelation of the Name is far more important than any pronunciation of the Name.
Regards,
Lanny

I have been perusing the "Yahshua/Jesus" debate below and thought I'd present my thoughts on the matter.

I think nearly everyone on this board agrees that the early disciples did not pronounce the saviors name as "Jeezus". We agree that the Hebrew/Aramaic pronunciation is something akin to "Yahshua". I think we all are also in agreement that Gabriel most likely spoke Aramaic to Mary when she told her the name by which the savior was to be called. Since Aramaic was the common language of the Jews "Yahshua" (or similar)was most likely the way Jesus' name was pronounced by his relatives, friends, and disciples.

We also all agree that the New Testament Greek spells it IESOUS (pronounced "EE'eh-soos"). This spelling and pronunciation was penned by " men moved by the Holy Spirit" (2Pet 1:21) and thus bears God's seal of approval.

It appears that some among us believe that Yahshua/Jesus is perhaps more pleased by the "correct" Heb/Aramaic pronunciation.

Since we are all in agreement as to the basic information of this issue, it does little good for
either side of the debate to shout facts which they feel support their side, and whisper facts which they feel support the other. (The "Yes-but" argument).

The ONLY concern I have about using the term "Yahshua" is that it is strange to the ears of English speaking believers. It would be equally strange to the ears of English speaking believers if we were to insist on the BIBLICAL PRONUNCIATION, "Iesous". Since we "unitarians" already occupy the position of "the unorthodox", why advertise ourselves as being "on the fringe" by using either the Aramaic or the Greek pronunciation?

If I intend to speak with someone about the doctrine of God and Christ I am already having to be careful lest he run screaming "Heresy! Heresy!". I want at the outset to establish myself as a reasonable thinker who is not theologically dangerous or on the fringe. What profit is there to putting a stumbling block (large to some, small to others) before him at the outset. I don't want him to think "This guy's a little weird" the first time I pronounce the Savior's name, be it "Yahshua" or "Iesous".
We speak English. In English it is pronounced "Jesus".

On the other hand, if I were with a group of "Jews for Jesus" types, who used "Yahshua", I would happily adopt that pronunciation. If I were in Africa, I'd pronounce it "Yisi" (as I understand some do).

The question before us is simply this: Is God concerned about the pronunciation? I think the evidence indicates that He is not - else why have the inspired Greek text UNIVERSALLY spell it "Iesous"? Surely the God could have had the N.T. authors use Greek letters which would have more accurately preserved the pronunciation "Yahshua" (Iota, Alpha, Sigma, Upsilon, Alpha - or similar). But He chose to allow the common Greek spelling (found in the LXX as "Iesous").

Paul, who spoke Hebrew and Greek (and probably Latin) met Christ in a most profound way on the road to Damascus. The "Lord" identified himself saying "Ego eime Iesous" (Act 9:6). Since Paul was Hebrew, it is possible that Christ spoke Hebrew/Aramaic to Paul on the road, but that Paul repeated the story to Luke in Greek. Interestingly, when Paul relates the story to the mob at Jerusalem, he speaks Hebrew (Act 21:40). Here, certainly he used the Hebrew word "Yahshua", though it is recorded by Luke as "Iesous". The final relation of this story in Acts is before King Aggrippa, where he most certainly used Greek (though Latin is a possibility). Regardless, Paul very likely did not pronounce the Hebrew/Aramaic version of the name.

Any gentile reader, having no knowledge of Heb/Aramaic would pronounce the saviors name "Iesous". I think if the Heb./Aramaic pronunciation were important to God, He would have made some provision to have it transliterated into the Greek text.

I believe that the shape my lips make, or the vocalizations which come from my mouth is of little importance. What is essential is the IDEAs conveyed by the words I speak (or write). It is much more important to me that I convince a Christian that God is One, not Three in One, than that I use "sacred" Hebrew pronunciation. Is Hebrew sacred - or is sacred language a Catholic idea? (Sorry for the little jab).

If we are to prefer the original pronunciations of words pertaining to God, it begs the question "where do we stop?" or "Where does my fidelity become absurdity?". Should we not say "God", but instead use "Elohim",or "Theos"? Should we not say "Jesus is Lord" but instead say "Yahshua is Adoni" or "Iesous is Kurios"?

I say, since we all have knowledge, for the purposes of this board let each be fully persuaded in his own mind on the matter. But to everyone else, let us speak words to the maximum of edification, not offending or alarming them.

Of course, if certain of our ancestors hadn't tried to buid a ziggarat on the plain of Shinar we wouldn't be having this discussion. The same God who confused tongues at Babel, inspired the Hebrews to write "Yahshua" and insprired the writers of the N.T. to write "Iesous". I think He is not bothered by changes of pronunciation accross the spectrum of language.

PS - a personal pet peeve. It's pronounced "sherBET" not "sherBERT". The only excuse for mispronouncing sherBET is if ones tongue is frozen and he's asking for seconds, in which case it comes out as "sthhttuuubuuut".

Application, Application, Application

I was thinking, say a relatively unknown author who had just penned a manuscript using the KJV for his Bible quotes sent the work in for a market analysis. The author got back the following advice, “if you want it to be a work that publishers will list and have a broader audience appeal, change the Bible quotes to the NIV.” This would be a typical response.

However, what are the chances that the editor would also say, “and change all the Bible verses in the NIV that mention ‘Jesus’ to the Hebrew name for Jesus.”

From a strict marketing perspective doing that would be the kiss of death.

Rich Kelsey