Jesus is not the original Greek or Aramaic pronunciation, so how can it save?

[maryofoxford]

Some people claim that our Lord should not be referred to as “Jesus.” Instead, we should only use the name “Yeshua.” Some even go so far as to say that calling Him “Jesus” is blasphemous. Others go into great detail about how the name “Jesus” is unbiblical because the letter J is a modern invention and there was no letter J in Greek or Hebrew.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.”

As for the controversy over the letter J, it is much ado about nothing. It is true that the languages in which the Bible was written had no letter J. But that doesn’t mean the Bible never refers to “Jerusalem.” And it doesn’t mean we cannot use the spelling “Jesus.” If a person speaks and reads English, it is acceptable for him to spell things in an English fashion. Spellings can change even within a language: Americans write “Savior,” while the British write “Saviour.” The addition of a u (or its subtraction, depending on your point of view) has nothing to do with whom we’re talking about. Jesus is the Savior, and He is the Saviour. Jesus and Yeshuah and Iesus are all referring to the same Person.

The Bible nowhere commands us to only speak or write His name in Hebrew or Greek. It never even hints at such an idea. Rather, when the message of the gospel was being proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the languages of the “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene” (Acts 2:9–10). In the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was made known to every language group in a way they could readily understand. Spelling did not matter.

We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same: the Lord is salvation.

This is a great answer and one that I agree with 100% and the Catholic faith agrees with you too.

 

[maryofoxford]

Not sure what the OP's problem was, but, although I'm not Greek Orthodox Catholic, or from an Orthodox Catholic rite, I HIGHLY doubt that is taught in that faith. I know for a fact that it's not taught in the Catholic Church, nor any rites of the Catholic faith. Since the Greek-Orthodox Catholic Church, although separated from the Catholic Church, have most of their doctrines in common with us, I'd think it's a good bet this is one of them.

I'd really like to hear someone else in the Orthodox Catholic Church respond to this.

 

[Gogeta]

It has to do with the Bible. I don't follow any Church doctrine.

 

[stage five]

I am going by the Bible.

Your side hasn't posted a single verse that supports your position.

If the name isn't important, then accept Krishna as your savior.

If Krishna was another name for Jesus I don't see the issue. Jesus is a common name in His day and it is still used by various cultures. There is nothing magical about the name.

 

[stage five]

Do you want me to post the Greek?

Jesus' name was Aramaic, not Greek.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Per Acts 4:12, there is only 1 name that can save.

Jesus is not even close to the original Greek or Aramaic pronunciations.

I guess we are all lost on a technicality. Oh well. . .

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't follow any Church doctrine.

You may want to consider it.

 

[maryofoxford]

It has to do with the Bible. I don't follow any Church doctrine.

So you're NOT Eastern-Orthodox. I'm pretty sure the Bible speaks against bearing false witness.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Im pretty sure that one is like 13 verses below thou shalt not make graven images also

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Duet 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Duet 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

Duet 19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

Prov 25:18 A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

Mat 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;

Mark 14:56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.

 

[Strong in Him]

I really don't care about Churches. I go by the Bible.

If you went by the Bible, you would join a church.

The Messiah, whatever you want to call him, established the church, Matthew 16:18. He said when someone sinned against someone else they should take the matter to the church, Matthew 18:17. The disciples and other believers met regularly to break bread, worship and share in fellowship, Acts 2:42-44. Paul founded churches all over. The epistles were written to churches, as were the 7 letters in Revelation. The person who wrote Hebrews was writing to people some of whom were not meeting together regularly, whether from fear of persecution or a feeling that they'd be better on their own, I'm not sure, and wrote, "let us not give up the habit of meeting together", Hebrews 10:25.
The church is the people; a group of believers who meet together to fellowship, worship, study the Bible and pray together - it is not a building. The early believers met in homes - Acts 12:12.
If it's a good church, there will be Bible teaching, fellowship, support, opportunity for encouragement and to talk about your faith. Right from the beginning, God said "it is not good for man to be alone", gave him a companion and established families. People are stronger in groups - anyone facing an army, a group of bullies or any kind of opposition, will be stronger with others who stand beside them, praying, encouraging, supporting them.

Church - groups of Bible believing, worshipping, born again Christians - is a Biblical concept.

 

[SAAN]

Per Acts 4:12, there is only 1 name that can save.

Jesus is not even close to the original Greek or Aramaic pronunciations.

While you are correct that Jesus was never his real name, as there is no letter J isnt Hebrew or Greek. Yahushah/Yeshua was his name in Hebrew, as it meant YAH/YHWH/YAHWEH is salvation, but there is no command in the Torah anywhere that says it is a sin to transliterate a name. While Jesus is a poor transliteration from Hebrew down to English, it is still a transliteration and as long as people are calling out to the son of the God of Abraham, Issac ,and Jacob, the Messiah knows who are his children whether they are calling him, Jesus, Joshua, Iesus, Yeshua, Yahushah.

 

[Gogeta]

Its good you agree Jesus was never his real name.

 

[pgp_protector]

Bible chapter and verse that allows you to use a Computer.

 

[SAAN]

Bible chapter and verse that allows you to use a Computer.

Bible chapter and verse that allows you to use a the bathroom.

 

[pgp_protector]

Bible chapter and verse that allows you to use a the bathroom.

Bible chapter and verse that allows you to ask me about bible chapter and verse to use the bathroom.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Its good you agree Jesus was never his real name.

What do you call the Christ?

 

[Strong in Him]

Its good you agree Jesus was never his real name.

What does it matter? It refers to the same person, and it is belief in this person - who was God incarnate, who died for our sins, was raised from the dead and ascended and sent his Holy Spirit - which saves.

 

[Standing Up]

What does it matter? It refers to the same person, and it is belief in this person - who was God incarnate, who died for our sins, was raised from the dead and ascended and sent his Holy Spirit - which saves.

Justin Martyr once argued the name mattered, not in the sense of having to know a specific name as to salvation, but of fulfilling prophecy.

“What I mean is this. Jesus (Joshua), as I have now frequently remarked, who was called Oshea, when he was sent to spy out the land of Canaan, was named by Moses Jesus (Joshua). Why he did this you neither ask, nor are at a loss about it, nor make strict inquiries. Therefore Christ has escaped your notice; and though you read, you understand not; and even now, though you hear that Jesus is our Christ, you consider not that the name was bestowed on Him not purposelessly nor by chance. But you make a theological discussion as to why one ‘α’ was added to Abraham’s first name; and as to why one ‘ρ’ was added to Sarah’s name, you use similar high-sounding disputations.23732373 According to the LXX., Σάρα was altered to Σάῤῥα, and Ἄβραμ to Ἀβραάμ. But why do you not similarly investigate the reason why the name of Oshea the son of Nave (Nun), which his father gave him, was changed to Jesus (Joshua)?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxiii.html

 

[Standing Up]

... and of these it seems good to me now to speak of another, for it conduces to your hereby knowing Jesus, whom we also know to have been Christ the Son of God, who was crucified, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, and will come again to judge all men, even up to Adam himself. You are aware, then,” I continued, “that when the ark of the testimony was seized by the enemies of Ashdod,24642464 See 1 Sam. v. and a terrible and incurable malady had broken out among them, they resolved to place it on a cart to which they yoked cows that had recently calved, for the purpose of ascertaining by trial whether or not they had been plagued by God’s power on account of the ark, and if God wished it to be taken back to the place from which it had been carried away. And when they had done this, the cows, led by no man, went not to the place whence the ark had been taken, but to the fields of a certain man whose name was Oshea, the same as his whose name was altered to Jesus (Joshua), as has been previously mentioned, who also led the people into the land and meted it out to them: and when the cows had come into these fields they remained there, showing to you thereby that they were guided by the name of power;24652465 Or, “by the power of the name.” [1 Sam. vi. 14. Joshua in English version.] just as formerly the people who survived of those that came out of Egypt, were guided into the land by him who had received the name Jesus (Joshua), who before was called Oshea.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxxxii.html

 

[Fireinfolding]

Justin Martyr once argued the name mattered, not in the sense of having to know a specific name as to salvation, but of fulfilling prophecy.

“What I mean is this. Jesus (Joshua), as I have now frequently remarked, who was called Oshea, when he was sent to spy out the land of Canaan, was named by Moses Jesus (Joshua). Why he did this you neither ask, nor are at a loss about it, nor make strict inquiries. Therefore Christ has escaped your notice; and though you read, you understand not; and even now, though you hear that Jesus is our Christ, you consider not that the name was bestowed on Him not purposelessly nor by chance. But you make a theological discussion as to why one ‘α’ was added to Abraham’s first name; and as to why one ‘ρ’ was added to Sarah’s name, you use similar high-sounding disputations.23732373 According to the LXX., Σάρα was altered to Σάῤῥα, and Ἄβραμ to Ἀβραάμ. But why do you not similarly investigate the reason why the name of Oshea the son of Nave (Nun), which his father gave him, was changed to Jesus (Joshua)?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxiii.html

This is actually interesting to me, you think that could be tied into these here?

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

And here, as he was made of a woman made under the law, Paul says

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Like right there, till the seed should come, he being made of a woman made under the law (which was ordained of angels) in the hand of a mediator, where we see in both cases an angel (which appeared to Mary) and which appeared to Joseph (in a dream) which gave the actual name shown in Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:25 & Luke 2:21

Edit, needed to fix a verse, wasnt Luke 21:21 but Luke 2:21