The false theologies of the hebrew language only movement.

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I refer to the word, doctrine, and traditions of Christ and the Apostles brother, as that is the Lord's truth.

God bless and God you to the truth of his word brother
And yet use none if it upon which to base teaching people must use inly the hebrew form of the name.. Hmm
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am a member of a evangelical charismatic church within which a few of us have taken a look at our Hebrew roots for general edification. For me, the blessing has primarily been that I have found in it an authentification of my trust in the Lord Jesus to get me beyond the grips of Higher Criticism. As a result, I am more assured that the original Scriptures (whether Hebrew for the OT or Greek for the NT) were 100% accurate in their original take. My pastor is not "HR" in any movement sense, but for emphasis, and to give OT references a sense of immediacy and "you were there", he will say names of God, people and places in the Hebrew/Greek way.

So, congregation at-large, all of us understand that we have been grafted into believing Israel. Some HRers wear a prayer shawl to services as a sign of dedication and not for show. I like to take the standard OT (Parasha) readings for the Jewish Sabbath and read them along with the recommended NT readings outlined by Stern in the Complete Jewish Bible. Still, I use the NKJV, NASB and Spanish Reina-Valera for general reading.

I believe certain thoughts must be concurrently accepted: (1) that the original scriptures came in specific languages, making the transmission of them the most accurate for reference, (2) that God intended for the Scriptures (old/new) to be spread via translation. In the latter, there certainly is a degree of trust placed on the Holy Spirit to guide interpreters (I have no problem with that, because I have seen more truth being communicated by preachers of the Gospel in Spanish than by liberal theologian well-versed in Hebrew/Greek). I wonder if St. Paul anticipated translation issues when he admonished that not many should be teachers. And all this does make me ponder that perhaps it is a degree of uniform liturgy and sacraments (are those ever debated on CF!) that allows original intent to stick despite translation.

There is a hardcore HR para-church group that meets in my city, about all gentiles. They are outstanding believers and go out of their way to not undermine their very "gentile minded" pastors. I was interested until I understood that there is among them a line of reasoning that says we can understand the NT better if we study the OT via the teachings of extra-biblical teachings of rabbis--then, this would make us better hearers of the Word expressed in the NT. The jury is not out for me on this, as I can see some validity in this as far as understanding custom and context, while it still strikes me that there is is a very fine line that might even cause one to sway away from the Root of Jesse into the speculations that Paul cautioned us about. But, the jury might say that studying those rabbis some, with a seeking heart and discerning spirit, is like archeology. Even the stones can tell us things that affirm and even elucidate on the scriptures.
In short... The congregation has been influenced and infiltrated by these false doctrines .albeit your polite defense of it .
It will bring confusions and divisions and lead astray..
The problem is as with everywhere..
Too much hearing of the word not enough doing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And I am not interested in your opinion on the sources I have provided. Only proof directly from the word of God that shows his name to be anything other than Yahshua. He came in the Lord's name Yah, not in the Lord's name Jesus.
Wrong as usual. Unlike you I did not give my opinion, I quoted from Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon and the Jewish Encyclopedia which you blew off because you think Strong's is more accurate.
You have not provided any credible, verifiable, historical evidence for anything. Here is some information about the accuracy of Strong's.

• Online Bible FAQ
Q:The Online Bible Strongs is not the same as my Exhaustive Strongs Concordance. Why is that?
A: We used the Strong's system but the actual Greek and Hebrew to implement the numbers. By doing this we corrected about 15000 errors in the Strong's concordance.
Frequently Asked Questions - Online Bible Then click “The Online Bible Strongs is not the same as my Exhaustive Strong’s concordance.”
• Rebuilding Strong’s time-honored concordance from the ground up, biblical research experts John Kohlenberger and James Swanson have achieved unprecedented accuracy and clarity. Longstanding errors have been corrected. Omissions filled in. Word studies simplified. Thoroughness and ease of use have been united and maximized.
Zondervan Publishing the Strongest Strong’s.
You claim that Strong's is superior to any source I quoted. What, if any, language training or sources support that opinion?
If you want more information on the name Yahshua you can check out this link and then I would ask that you seek out others for yourself.
I do not agree with everything believed by these people but I do agree with their explanation(for the most part) of how the name was changed and how we know the true name is Yahshua.
I don't need any more false information on the the name of the Savior.
I went to your link and I found NOTHING which shows the pronunciation of ישןע is Yahshua. As I said the Masoretes added vowel points to the Hebrew and they pointed ישןע as Yeshua. All you got is some anonymous guy with a phony name online claiming only he has the true, truth and everybody else is wrong.
You claimed that because Jesus said He came in the name of the Lord His name should be Yahshua. But hold on a minute.

1 Samuel 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.
When the shepherd boy came to the giant Goliath "in the name of the Lord" did his name change to Yahweh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alithis
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
I don't need any more false information on the the name of the Savior.
I went to your link and I found NOTHING which shows the pronunciation of ישןע is Yahshua. As I said the Masoretes added vowel points to the Hebrew and they pointed ישןע as Yeshua. All you got is some anonymous guy with a phony name online claiming only he has the true, truth and everybody else is wrong.
You claimed that because Jesus said He came in the name of the Lord His name should be Yahshua. But hold on a minute.

1 Samuel 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.
When the shepherd boy came to the giant Goliath "in the name of the Lord" did his name change to Yahweh?
Well brother you came into this discussion with a mindset not to believe anything brought to you, there are dozens of sites and sources you could look to that prove the Lord's name is Yahshua and Not Jesus(not just one guy but thousands of people and scholars with decades of research and study). But you do not want to do that, you have already made up your mind on the matter. So this is where I leave you.

One more thing before I go. David already had a name, nowhere are we told Davids name would be a unique and powerful name given by heaven, or that it would change. David was a man not God, God names bears God's name that is just a simple and easily understood fact(Yah is God's name, God's name would then be Yah). The name given to Yahshua was given to him and only him, it is a name above all other names and none had possessed it before or since. How many people had the name Jesus before Christ came? Jesus is not a name above all other names, it is a name held by many before him and many after. Yahshua is God's name alone and none posses it but him.

May the Lord guide you to truth and light of his word brother.
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
And yet use none if it upon which to base teaching people must use inly the hebrew form of the name.. Hmm
I have shown this several times now brother. Nowhere in scripture do we see the Lord giving us permission to change his name to just a common name held by many other people(even during christ's time)
Here are the verses again brother you may have missed them.
"The true name of Christ is said to be very very very important, the bible does not in any way fail to stress the importance of the Son's name.
Here are some of the passages that state the Importance of this one name given by God for man to be saved.
Acts 4:10-12
Matt 28:18-20
Acts 10:48'
Ephesians 1:21
Acts 2:38
Acts 19:5
John 3:18
Romans 10:13
Acts 2:21
Zech 13:9
Romans 10:9

The name of God is important, more important than getting any other name on earth correct. Why you do not see the importance of getting the one given by God that brings salvation correct I do not understand.
John 5:43"
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,947
11,699
Neath
✟1,002,593.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I have shown this several times now brother. Nowhere in scripture do we see the Lord giving us permission to change his name to just a common name held by many other people(even during christ's time)
Here are the verses again brother you may have missed them.
"The true name of Christ is said to be very very very important, the bible does not in any way fail to stress the importance of the Son's name.
Here are some of the passages that state the Importance of this one name given by God for man to be saved.
Acts 4:10-12
Matt 28:18-20
Acts 10:48'
Ephesians 1:21
Acts 2:38
Acts 19:5
John 3:18
Romans 10:13
Acts 2:21
Zech 13:9
Romans 10:9

The name of God is important, more important than getting any other name on earth correct. Why you do not see the importance of getting the one given by God that brings salvation correct I do not understand.
John 5:43"

:doh::doh::doh:
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
<SD>Well brother you came into this discussion with a mindset not to believe anything brought to you, there are dozens of sites and sources you could look to that prove the Lord's name is Yahshua and Not Jesus(not just one guy but thousands of people and scholars with decades of research and study). But you do not want to do that, you have already made up your mind on the matter. So this is where I leave you.
One more thing before I go. David already had a name, nowhere are we told Davids name would be a unique and powerful name given by heaven, or that it would change. David was a man not God, God names bears God's name that is just a simple and easily understood fact(Yah is God's name, God's name would then be Yah). The name given to Yahshua was given to him and only him, it is a name above all other names and none had possessed it before or since. How many people had the name Jesus before Christ came? Jesus is not a name above all other names, it is a name held by many before him and many after. Yahshua is God's name alone and none posses it but him.

May the Lord guide you to truth and light of his word brother.<SD>
The same thing can be said about you and other sacred namers. But I come to this discussion with graduate study in the Biblical languages and more than 5 decades of of study, teaching and preaching.
And in case you haven't noticed I have provided evidence to support my position from Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon and the Jewish Encyclopedia. But I have not seen comparable evidence supporting the counter arguments being posted.
There is no, zero, none credible, verifiable, historical, lexical, grammatical evidence to support the name Yahshua.
...I guess Mary didn't get the memo that her son's name would be Yashua. If that were true the Greek transliteration would be Iasous not Iesous.

Matthew 1:21-23
(21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:[Ἰησοῦς] for he shall save his people from their sins.

(22) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
(23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
BDAG Greek lexicon of the NT
Ἰησοῦς (יֵשׁוּעַ Jeshua, later form for יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Joshua; s. MLidzbarski, Handb. d. nordsem. Epigr. 1898, 291; FPraetorius, ZDMG 59, 1905, 341f; FSteinmetzer, BZ 14, 1917, 193ff; FWaele, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen 5, ’42, 177–81), gen. οῦ, dat. οῦ, acc. οῦν, voc. οῦ, ὁ Joshua/Jesus. This name, common among Jews (several persons w. it in LXX and Joseph. [Niese, index]; EpArist 48; 49; ins fr. the time of Augustus [RevÉpigr n.s. 1, 1913 no. 12]; POxy 816 [I B.C.]; PLond III, 1119a, 2 p. 25 [105 A.D.]. Ostraca: Sb 5812; 5817; 5820; 5822), usu. takes the article in the gospels (in J the nom. freq. appears without the art.: RNevius, NTS 12, ’65, 81–85; GFee, NTS 17, ’71, 168–83) except when it is accompanied by a word in apposition w. the art.; in the epistles and Rv it does not regularly take the art. (B-D-F §260, 1; W-S, §18, 6; HvSoden, D. Schriften des NTs I/2, 1911, 1406–9).
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 471–472). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BDB Hebrew lexicon.
H3091. Yehoshua יְהוֺשֻׁעַ יְהוֺשׁוּעַ, and (later) יֵשׁוּעַ,
proper name, masculine (& location, see
9 below) (׳י is salvation, or ׳י is opulence, compare אֲבִישׁוּעַ אֱלִישׁוּעַ, אֱלִישָׁע, & NesSK 1892, 573 f.; in any case it came to be associated with ישׁע, compare Mat_1:21; on יֵשׁוּעַ see especially FräVOJ iv. 1890, 332 f. MüllSK 1892, 177 f. who cite analogue for change of וֹ to later ֵ֯, & Nesl.c.) —
1 Moses' successor, son of Nun, (ᵐ5 Ἰησοῦς)
[1] Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 421). Oxford: Clarendon Press.


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You say the name does not matter because the Lord knows who you are referring to. If that is the case call him anything you want to, and no matter the name he will know who are speaking of and bless you.
If that is not the case then what name we call him is indeed important. At the very least the right name is important at baptism, since it must be in his name and none other. Can we agree that the Lord's name is important, and that what we call him is important? Or do you still believe what we call him is not important and does not matter?
As soon as you show me clear and convincing, credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence that the name of the savior is Yahshua I will start using it.
John 12:20-23
(20) And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
(21) The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.[Ἰησοῦς]

(22) Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.
(23) And Jesus [Ἰησοῦς] answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
I wonder why Philip or Jesus or someone did not correct the Greek Jews that the savior's name is Yahshua or [Ἰασοῦς] and not Iesous? Maybe they didn't get the "sacred namer" memo that the whole world is wrong but a bunch of 21st century sacred namers, most of whom could not locate a Hebrew verb or conjugate a Greek verb if their lives depended on it.
ETA: The name Ἰησοῦς occurs in the NT 935 times. Yahshua does not occur even one time. Why did none of the NT writers get it right according to "sacred namers?"
Surely there is at least one NT manuscript, somewhere, which has Yahshua.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have shown this several times now brother. Nowhere in scripture do we see the Lord giving us permission to change his name to just a common name held by many other people(even during christ's time)
Here are the verses again brother you may have missed them.
"The true name of Christ is said to be very very very important, the bible does not in any way fail to stress the importance of the Son's name.
Here are some of the passages that state the Importance of this one name given by God for man to be saved.
Acts 4:10-12
Matt 28:18-20
Acts 10:48'
Ephesians 1:21
Acts 2:38
Acts 19:5
John 3:18
Romans 10:13
Acts 2:21
Zech 13:9
Romans 10:9

The name of God is important, more important than getting any other name on earth correct. Why you do not see the importance of getting the one given by God that brings salvation correct I do not understand.
John 5:43"
Dude.... God himself changed the one language of man into the 2000 plus and more then 20,000 associated dialects and NEVER says any where you must not use the name of his only begotten son (note: not the fathers name but the sons) in the perimeters of your own given language.
And the name of the Son differs in dialect and pronunciation but NEVER in meaning or purpose .
Nor is the name of the son cancelled out .but given eternally and given ABOVE EVERY NAME in heaven and earth .. Nor is the son made non existant in his return to the father but is seated at the right hsnd of the father the eternal hier of the kingdom

If he were no longer existant but one single being with the father then there is no son..no son means no heir , no heir means no coheirs meaning no one is saved.

And we are not so gullible to not notice that the diminishment of the lord JESUS was twisted into much of your presentation Not his glorification.
You seek to glorify the father and diminish the son ..a common thread with judaizors.

But the Only acceptable way to glorify God is in the glorificatin of his only begotten and eternal son
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I ask that you prove from scripture where it says the son's name was not Yah(Yahshua) as the Fathers name is Yah(YHWH).

The New Testament was written in Greek. The name of Jesus written there is Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). That is the word of God.

Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) is also the Greek form of the name "Joshua."

That is what was written in the encyclopedia

A simple search shows that that is not true.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

goldenboy

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2010
164
22
✟18,150.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There is this growing trend of teaching for some years now which has sprung out of the " Hebrew roots" type movment.
The belief that to fully understand scripture you need a deeper understanding of Hebrew language and culture.
Which is really null and void since the New testiment is originally in Greek and true understanding of the word inspired by the Holy Spirit comes by the same Holy Spirit who leads into all Truth.
From that erronious theology of hebrew roots another more insidious doctrine has risen .
it teaches Hebrew language only can be used in reference to God for it to be valid.
Even going as far as to teach ..based upon NO scripture what so ever.. That the name of Jesus has MORE power if you pronounce it correctly in Hebrew .
it also teaches that any other lingual translation is false. And not valid.
( and ,not surprisingly ,it also demands days and festivals of law be observed..)
In short it is just another attack to bar the way to life by confusing the use of the name of JESUS and dragging oeople back under the Law by which they can be condemned.

It is SO FLAWED as a theology yet is gaining vast numbers of followers . you can tell them by thier increasing use of yeshua or yehashua when they are conversing in General with English not hebrew audiences.
I.e if a hebrew speaking israeli is using Yeshua ..that is not a sign they are into or influenced by that false theological movment... That is thier native tongue..
But if an every day middle class Australian (for eg only) who has no isreali heritage starts using the name of Jesus in hebrew form only... Whether they realise it or not they have been influence By this false theology.

Its being used to confuse... Where once people plainly prayed..now they are confused so the sprinkle thier prayer wiyh a few "Yeshuas" in hrbrews along with Jesus in English or jesu in chinese.. Just in case. Displaying the confusion and anxieties the false theology has caused them..

My friends who love the lord JESUS...
Be FREE to use his name within the realms of your own language for it is GOD not man and not the devil who caused the languages to br multiplied on the earth .
They All came from God.
And there is Zero ... ZERO!.. Scripture to base such confusing and false theology and doctrine on.
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

This works for me. Also, just think...there must have been at least 1000 different people named "Jeshuah, Yashua, etc..." in Jerusalem alone at the time of The Messiah. A simple concept that is taught in almost ALL Christian churches is that "The Name" means who the person was, what they did, defines a name, not just their birth name. If somebody says "Jesus Saves", and I point to a local gangsta from the barrio named Jesus, and say "Him???" they will say, "No, you know who I mean..." Now, of course, if I didn't know the Bible, and am in Jerusalem ca. 41 AD, and I hear "Jehushuah saves, only that name!"

Hmmm...do I point to the local tent maker and say "Him?"
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have shown this several times now brother. Nowhere in scripture do we see the Lord giving us permission to change his name to just a common name held by many other people(even during christ's time)
Here are the verses again brother you may have missed them.
"The true name of Christ is said to be very very very important, the bible does not in any way fail to stress the importance of the Son's name.
Here are some of the passages that state the Importance of this one name given by God for man to be saved.
Acts 4:10-12
Matt 28:18-20
Acts 10:48'
Ephesians 1:21
Acts 2:38
Acts 19:5
John 3:18
Romans 10:13
Acts 2:21
Zech 13:9
Romans 10:9

The name of God is important, more important than getting any other name on earth correct. Why you do not see the importance of getting the one given by God that brings salvation correct I do not understand.
John 5:43"
Everyone who calls on the salvation of God..
How they pronounce his name is completely irrelvant .
 
Upvote 0