Discussion Hebrew Roots; error or something else?

[MoreCoffee]

I can't understand what the argument is here. Obviously the new testament writings do not want christians to be Jews. Nevertheless it is true that we have been grafted into their olive tree and some of them have been broken off due to blindness, but God has not cast them away.

However there are lots of scriptures that tell us to bless Israel (which was in Abraham's loins) and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. God still has purposes and destinies for the present Israel. The scriptures are full of them. Christ is coming back to Jerusalem and Jesus is still called the Lion of Judah, even in heaven. The foundation of the New Jerusalem the bride of Christ is the twelve tribes of Israel. See revelation. These things are hard to understand but we write off the Jews at our peril.

The issue that is being debated here and across the land is should Christians abandon the English name and title by which they call upon the Lord and scrupulously use modern Hebrew pronunciations (such as Yahweh and Yeshua) and should Christians observe dietary rules and other ordinances from the old covenant as a moral and religious obligation? Are the ancient feast days to be set aside and observed and the sabbaths observed as a commandment from God which to disobey will being chastisement from God? Shall Christians adopt superstitious customs like spelling God as G-d and Lord as L-rd? The answer to these questions is no. No Christians ought to be instructed to do these things or use these words as an act of religious worship or sacred duty. If a Christian wants to see what a Jewish passover is like then by all means see one, or read about it but let it be out of curiosity and do not attach any religious significance to it as if it were something that Christians must do or else be in disobedience to God. The holy scriptures explicitly condemn those who teach such things.

By the way, there are no scriptures telling Christians to bless the modern state of Israel nor was the promise to Abram a promise about blessing Israel; when the promise was made Israel was not yet born and he would not be born for many years to come and Abram (who was later renamed as Abraham) was not his natural father but rather a grandfather to him. The blessing was addressed to Abram and to him in the singular not to a nation of millions.

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee*, and curse him that curseth thee*: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
(Genesis 12:1-3 KJV)​

* thee is the singular form for "you"; in the Hebrew and in the Greek of this text the singular is used.

And one more thing, the psalms do encourage prayer for Jerusalem and under the old covenant it was the Earthly Jerusalem that was in mind but for Christians the New Jerusalem is the one whose peace we are to pray for and she is the bride of Christ the Church of the Living God so we pray for the peace of the Church of God but not for a city shared between the state of Israel and the Palestinian authority.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Any Jew who speaks English can say Jesus unless they have some sort of speech impediment that precludes uttering the letter J. And in ancient Israel or in the province of Judea in the time of Christ what the Jews said when addressing the Lord Jesus Christ is represented almost exclusively in the Greek letters Ἰησοῦ and not by "Yeshua" or a Greek equivalent. Jesus is far closer to the spelling and pronunciation of the name of the Lord as it is preserved for us in holy scripture than is Yeshua.

Seriously, I encourage you to read the Bible all by itself at a very slow pace. I remember years ago I worked for a religious organization and we would have devotions together every morning. I was shocked at how often I would say something regarding the particular reading and they would all get upset saying that what I'd said was not so...then I'd point them to the portion in the scripture reading that we had just read, where it would say exactly what I had said and they would just stare at it...having read it but not seen it.

Too often we read into scriptures what our "teachers" have told us it says and totally miss what it actually says. I read scripture a lot more slowly and deliberately now so that I don't miss the forest for the trees. Jesus was not English neither was His mother and she did not give him a Greek name. His Jewish name, whether you like it or not was not Jesus, no matter how your Catholic Bible has it.

I do believe the scriptures are holy but they've been heavily tampered with by those who hate the Jews and wanted to erase anything connected to it. Your Catholic organization of course does not teach that, as most others do not, but there's a lot of written history involving the Roman church, and other haters of Jews at the time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Seriously, I encourage you to read the Bible all by itself at a very slow pace. I remember years ago I worked for a religious organization and we would have devotions together every morning. I was shocked at how often I would say something regarding the particular reading and they would all get upset saying that what I'd said was not so...then I'd point them to the portion in the scripture reading that we had just read, where it would say exactly what I had said and they would just stare at it...having read it but not seen it.

Too often we read into scriptures what our "teachers" have told us it says and totally miss what it actually says. I read scripture a lot more slowly and deliberately now so that I don't miss the forest for the trees. Jesus was not English neither was His mother and she did not give him a Greek name. His Jewish name, whether you like it or not was not Jesus, no matter how your Catholic Bible has it. I do believe the scriptures are holy but they've been heavily tampered with by those who hate the Jews and wanted to erase anything connected to it. Your Catholic organization of course does not teach that, as most others do not, but there's a lot of history involving the Roman church, other haters of Jews they don't teach.

I will not rise to the bait you set by rehearsing what I have read or how often I have read the holy scriptures. That would serve no purpose because the validity of an argument is in what it says and not in who says it. I have provided quotes from holy scripture and citations of its text and I have given the Greek text for Acts 7:45 and for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ but your replies have refrained from addressing the text and now you attempt to play the man and thus avoid the substance of the argument. You cannot win an argument by slight of hand.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I will not rise to the bait you set but rehearsing what I have read or how often I have read the holy scriptures. That would serve no purpose because the validity of an argument is in what it says and not in who says it. I have provided quotes from holy scripture and citations of its text and I have given the Greek text for Acts 7:45 and for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ but your replies have refrained from addressing the text and now you attempt to play the man and thus avoid the substance of the argument. You cannot win an argument by slight of hand.

I don't even know what that means. LOL Really I'm just a simple person. I did not say anything about how often only that I feel you are saying only what you've been told it says. I still believe that. Jesus is the Greek form, Yeshua is the Hebrew.

The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), also having the variants Joshua or Jeshua.

I suppose it does not really matter whether we call Him Jesus or Yeshua, or whether it's in Russian, or Dutch, or whatever, as long as it's the Son of God who died for our sins and sits on the right hand of the Father making intercession for us. 'Cause if whoever we're calling upon is not HIM, then we are doomed.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't even know what that means. LOL Really I'm just a simple person. I did not say anything about how often only that I feel you are saying only what you've been told it says. I still believe that. Jesus is the Greek form, Yeshua is the Hebrew.

The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), also having the variants Joshua or Jeshua.

I suppose it does not really matter whether we call Him Jesus or Yeshua, or whether it's in Russian, or Dutch, or whatever, as long as it's the Son of God who died for our sins and sits on the right hand of the Father making intercession for us. 'Cause if whoever we're calling upon is not HIM, then we are doomed.

This part of your claim is true "The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous)" but the claim that it is a rendition of a Hebrew name is speculative and probably incorrect because the spoken language of Judea in Jesus' day was Aramaic which is not Hebrew. (as an aside the square letters you used "ישוע" are Aramaic letters not ancient Hebrew letters).

If you were writing in modern Hebrew then pronouncing ישוע as Yeshua would be fine with me that is probably the current pronunciation for the Lord Jesus's name in Modern Israel among Hebrew speakers but it is a modern speculative reconstruction of the old testament name that is written as Joshua in English so it really has very little to do with what is in scripture and a whole lot to do with speculative reconstruction of the long dead Hebrew language.

The other teachings that men like Jim Staley propagate are quite troubling.

 

[jiminpa]

I actually attend a 'Jewish roots' or 'Messianic' congregation.

It's very interesting, because the people who go there are from many different denominations. I am probably more pentecostal, but there are anglicans, baptists, even a catholic priest who attends! And also of course jewish people who are still coming to grips with the whole grace / law thing.

The teaching is very focused on what does the Bible say, instead of interpretations etc. so the messages are very non-denominational and aren't anything new or contrary to what is preached in "normal" churches (haha whatever that is ). So I see it as less of a theological movement, and more of a cultural movement if that makes sense? We celebrate the traditional jewish festivals that Jesus and the early church celebrated as well. I find these festivals particularly fascinating and enjoyable because of the prophetic meaning hidden in all of them (spoiler alert - they all point to Jesus and the Holy Spirit!).

Also, understanding some of the Jewish practices and traditions helps you to understand some of the strange habits and practices in the Bible and also a lot of the parables that Jesus said. For instance why did the lady get healed by touching the hem of Jesus's garment? That's pretty interesting to look at from a Jewish perspective... Also the church in large today is not really reading or teaching from the Old Testament and generally has a large lack of understanding in this area (speaking from personal experience here). This is something that the Messianic movement focuses on correcting by having a deepened understanding of Jewish culture etc. Personally I mostly read from the NT because there is so much life in it, but I also think it is important to at least understand the OT. And there is also a lot of beauty in it, especially when looking at all the prophecies about Jesus in the OT. (Ruth and Boaz is one example - a type or metaphor for Jesus redeeming the gentile church.)

Having an understanding from this Jewish perspective, makes it not only meaningful for yourself, but it also enables you to share the gospel with Jewish people.

The whole Bible, but also the New Testament makes it very clear that God is not abandoning His Jewish people and that He is not done with them yet. We as gentiles have the privilege to 'provoke them to jealousy.' Romans 11:11 - "Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."

Sadly I have seen a lot of people in the Messianic movement that have adopted some unhealthy beliefs (we have to become Jews ourselves, follow the law etc.) which is not good or true, but in general I see the movement as something positive! Finding our roots again which gives meaning to today! And understanding God's purposes for Israel and their future.

P.S. Some churches see God's love for Israel as: CHURCH vs. ISRAEL. And the Messianic movement is very focused on restoring that view. God doesn't love exclusively, He is love! But there are specific prophecies for Israel and the Jewish people that do not apply to the church. And then there are specific prophecies and blessings for the church that does not include Israel.

(Not wanting to debate on here. Just thought I would shed some light on the movement since I am in it!)

One of the things that I love about the OT is how if you read it to learn God's character you can see Him wanting to show mercy from creation until now, and it's us who want nothing to do with God's mercy.

 

[Ken Rank]

Jesus spoke those word; there is no Yeshua, that name is an invention of a recent age when people attempted to re-create the dead language of the ancient Hebrews. There is no Yeshua in the new covenant but there is a Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, I know where you stand now. There was no letter "J" until 500 years ago, even Strong's concordance calls him Yehoshua, and his entry is now 125 years old.

Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

Now, that doesn't mean I think you are wrong for calling him Jesus. I can easily show how Yeshua was transliterated from that to the Greek Iesous, then to Latin as Iesus where it remained in the early English bibles until the advent of the J which at first carried the German influenced Y sound. In the early 1800's it then took on the harder French influenced sound we hear today and we have what we have. He will of course answer to that, but it isn't a name he heard with his own ears. Now that I know that, out of respect, I personally choose to say Yeshua. Please do as you are convicted.

 

[Ken Rank]

None of it is everlasting, because heaven and earth will pass away and we won't need them.

There is a difference between new testament and new covenant. What is the new testament? The written proof that Yeshua has come, and salvation is open to all.

Actually, if you go and look at the Greek word used for new when it says, "I will make a new heaven and a new earth," you'll find it is kainos... the Greek word for "new in regards to freshness." (Renewed) Yeshua is coming to earth, the meek inherit the earth... not heaven. The New Jerusalem comes down to earth... why does everyone think they are going to heaven?

 

[Ken Rank]

Yeshua would be the English spelling of the name that the Messiah answered to on the Earth. I don't get all hung up on Yeshua vs. Jesus, but if you want to make an issue of it "Jesus" would more closely translate to "son of zeus," and actually be a direct and blasphemous insult to God. But if you want to shine a light on the pagan roots of the name, "Jesus" I can repent of my current position that God is gracious enough to allow the name "Jesus" when intended well. I guess I'm saying that I'm not of any sacred name camp, but I could be if made to examine the issue.

This is not true at all. Zeus has the letter zeta in it, Iesous does not... there is no relation at all. Those who claim this all over the internet, that Jesus = Zeus, or "hey horse" and many other nonsensical things like that, are not trained in linguistics and are, at best, pseudo-scholars who are nothing but good salesmen making their product sound good enough to be repeated. Then all we have is an internet full of parrots repeating things that are not true. Here is the truth....

You do not translate a name. We translate words... red in English is rojo in Spanish as rojo is the word for "red." However, we don't take Esteban and make it Steven which I have seen high school Spanish teachers do. A name is to be transliterated... which means you write in your language the letters which allow you to pronounce the name in question... in it's language of origin. Not only that, but the meaning of the word REMAINS DEFINED in it's language of origin. If Yehoshua (Hebrew) means "YHWH has become salvation" and Yeshua (Aramaic and the accepted Hebrew short form of Yehoshua) means "he saves," then when you write it in another language so that you can pronounce it in it's original language, the definition comes from the original language. If the letters in your word happen to spell a word in your language, that is coincidence and has no bearing on the meaning of the name AT ALL! So...

We have Yeshua.... problem #1, there is no Y sound in Greek. So, in 300BC when the Jewish translators took the Hebrew Torah and Prophets into Greek for their Greek speaking brethren (a work known as the Septuagint) that manufactured a Y sound. The "I" (in Iesous) sounds like a few "e's" strung together....ee.... and the "e" carries an "ay" sound (as in hay). So we have ee-ay... now, say them together quickly and you'll hear the hint of a Y sound. That is as close as you can come. Problem #2, there is no "sh" sound in Greek, so they used a S. The "o" carries a double "o" sound as in "pooh" and the "u" carries a soft a as in "pa." So Iesous is ee-ay-soo-ah (yaysooah). It isn't exact, but it is as close as one can come in Greek.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, I know where you stand now. There was no letter "J" until 500 years ago, even Strong's concordance calls him Yehoshua, and his entry is now 125 years old.
...

I tried to make my position clear quite early on in the discussion. I do not see anything wrong with somebody who speaks modern Hebrew as their day to day language calling the Lord Jesus Christ by the modern Hebrew pronunciation and if that is approximately like Yeshua then no problems. But in English the Lord already has a name and it is Jesus and that name is essentially a transliteration of the Greek name that we have in the new testament scriptures. So it doesn't really matter if J as a distinct sound in English is around 550 or so years old - the truth is that the English language as we know it is only around 500 years old anyway - the object of this thread is not to discover the correct pronunciation of the Lord's name. After all does anybody believe that God wants correct pronunciation given that the languages in which he inspired the scriptures to be written became dead and their proper pronunciations lost? The object of the thread is to discover what is being taught in the various movements that can be placed under the broad category of Hebrew Roots and then to see if the teachings are errors or not. The thread title ought to be sufficient to make that clear.

 

[Messy]

This is not true at all. Zeus has the letter zeta in it, Iesous does not... there is no relation at all. Those who claim this all over the internet, that Jesus = Zeus, or "hey horse" and many other nonsensical things like that, are not trained in linguistics and are, at best, pseudo-scholars who are nothing but good salesmen making their product sound good enough to be repeated. Then all we have is an internet full of parrots repeating things that are not true. Here is the truth....

You do not translate a name. We translate words... red in English is rojo in Spanish as rojo is the word for "red." However, we don't take Esteban and make it Steven which I have seen high school Spanish teachers do. A name is to be transliterated... which means you write in your language the letters which allow you to pronounce the name in question... in it's language of origin. Not only that, but the meaning of the word REMAINS DEFINED in it's language of origin. If Yehoshua (Hebrew) means "YHWH has become salvation" and Yeshua (Aramaic and the accepted Hebrew short form of Yehoshua) means "he saves," then when you write it in another language so that you can pronounce it in it's original language, the definition comes from the original language. If the letters in your word happen to spell a word in your language, that is coincidence and has no bearing on the meaning of the name AT ALL! So...

We have Yeshua.... problem #1, there is no Y sound in Greek. So, in 300BC when the Jewish translators took the Hebrew Torah and Prophets into Greek for their Greek speaking brethren (a work known as the Septuagint) that manufactured a Y sound. The "I" (in Iesous) sounds like a few "e's" strung together....ee.... and the "e" carries an "ay" sound (as in hay). So we have ee-ay... now, say them together quickly and you'll hear the hint of a Y sound. That is as close as you can come. Problem #2, there is no "sh" sound in Greek, so they used a S. The "o" carries a double "o" sound as in "pooh" and the "u" carries a soft a as in "pa." So Iesous is ee-ay-soo-ah (yaysooah). It isn't exact, but it is as close as one can come in Greek.

Do you know if Yehoshua means Yahweh is salvation? I read that on internet.
If Yehoshua means YHWH is salvation, then you don't have that problem of there's only one Name by which we can be saved, well which one? YHWH or Yehoshua?

 

[Ken Rank]

Sorry, but christ just means annointed and was used for every Greek god and demigod. Messiah is not the same, as it applies to only one.

Not at all, King David was called Mashiach, messiah. I do agree however, that Christos was applied to other gods, but that doesn't alter the meaning of the word. It simply means "anointed," and Yehoshua was anointed.... the difference isn't the word, it would be an additional word, "the." Many have been anointed, but there is only one, "The anointed." (haMashiach) David was Mashiach but Yehoshua was haMashiach.

Lord is a title for anyone of nobility.

Lord means, "One who rules with authority." It is equal to the Hebrew adonai. Some claim Lord = Ba'al, but for crying out loud, God calls HIMSELF ba'al a number of times (Isaiah 54:5 as one example) so it isn't a word to avoid.

Jesus is a translation of a transliteration. A no-no in languages.

This is what I really wanted to address in your post Pat.... this isn't true. Iesous (Greek) went into Latin as Iesus where it remained in the early English bibles. When the J came into existence, it first carried the Y sound. We still have "Hallelujah" written as such in song books but we have ALWAYS said, "HalleluYAH." The "Ie" in Latin (like the Greek) carried a hint of a Y, and when the J came on the scene sounding like a Y, translators began to use it to make sure it was understood in English that his name began with a Y sound. It was never translated, "Jesus" as a word would have had to exist in English prior to 1500 if it was a word Iesus was translated into. It doesn't exist before, it was manufactured from Iesus when the J came into existence in the 16th century.

Peace.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

I tried to make my position clear quite early on in the discussion. I do not see anything wrong with somebody who speaks modern Hebrew as their day to day language calling the Lord Jesus Christ by the modern Hebrew pronunciation and if that is approximately like Yeshua then no problems. But in English the Lord already has a name and it is Jesus and that names is essentially a transliteration of the Greek name that we have in the new testament scriptures. So it doesn't really matter if J as a distinct sound in English is around 550 or so years old - the truth is that the English language as we know it is only around 500 years old anyway - the object of this thread is not to discover the correct pronunciation of the Lord's name. After all does anybody believe that God wants correct pronunciation given that the languages in which he inspired the scriptures to be written became dead and their proper pronunciations lost? The object of the thread is to discover what is being taught in the various movements that can be placed under the broad category of Hebrew Roots and then to see if the teachings are errors or not. The thread title ought to be sufficient to make that clear.

Brother, I truly don't mind what you or anyone else calls him, he will answer to Jesus, I am sure of it. However, he wasn't a Greek, he was a Jew. When he was born he wasn't called Iesous, he was given either the Hebrew Yehoshua (which I think fits Matthew 1:21 better because he is God in the flesh) or Yeshua, the Aramaic form and that was the language of Jews in Judea at that time. It doesn't matter what he became called in Greek, Latin, or English... because the root of all those forms is STILL Hebrew, even Strong's caught this. I think it was you who mentioned in another post that "Joshua" would have been a better rendition, and it would have since the successor to Moses had the same name our Messiah has. The NT translators went from the Greek, however, and so we end up with Jesus. Had they gone from the Hebrew we would have been calling him Joshua or Yeshua ALL ALONG.

Because I NOW know this, I call him Yeshua. I am not asking you to change, I don't care what you call him, that is between you and him, not you and I. Please be blessed!

 

[Ken Rank]

Do you know if Yehoshua means Yahweh is salvation? I read that on internet.
If Yehoshua means YHWH is salvation, then you don't have that problem of there's only one Name by which we can be saved, well which one? YHWH or Yehoshua?

In English, when we see the word "name" we think, "what we call somebody." It once dealt more with the reputation of the name bearer... i.e. "I can trust my children with Susan, she has a good name." But we have strayed from that and generally just see name as what we call somebody. So when we see, "No other name by which men can be saved," we are thinking, "what we call him." (i.e. Jesus, Yehoshua, Yeshua, etc.)

In Hebrew, the word for name is "shem." It is dealing more with the name bearer's character, reputation, authority, power... and in the case of God, even His presence. Here is an example:

Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

So as you can see, His NAME was proclaimed but what was spoken was not just 'YHWH' but all the things we know are attributes of his. When we proclaim His name we are declaring what a great and awesome God we serve. So let me extend that out.... to "walk in the name of YHWH" means to walk in a manner that reflects His character and reputation to the world around you. To PROFANE His name is to walk in a manner that stands opposed to His authority and character, i.e. claiming to be His but then living in a manner that opposes His will. That stains His reputation (shem) and is not in line with His character (shem) and is certainly not supported by His authority (shem). When we are baptized into Messiah's name... we are not immersed into letters, we are immersed into his power and authority over death. Acts 4:12 is not saying that the letters Y.H.W.H. or Y.E.S.H.U.A. or even J.E.S.U.S. are like magic words that when said properly means we are saved. If we apply what we know about the Hebrew concept of SHEM to that verse, then "There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved" means... there is no other with the authority and power to save you.

This thread is about Hebrew Roots... what I just shared here is one of the many things I learned from studying the roots and the truth is, it solves some problems. Unknowingly if we think we can say a word and God will hear us or bless us because we used that word... then we are making Him a genie at best, and at worst we are ascribing power to a collection of letters and NOT to the Being the collection of letters points to. Words are symbols that have no power, and in this case, His name (i.e. what we call Him) is POINTING at the one who has "all power in heaven and earth." No collection of letters has ANY power, He has it all! In fact, if we ascribe power to a collection of letters, we are turning His name into an idol that we expect something from. HE has all power, the collection of letters point to HIM.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... I think it was you who mentioned in another post that "Joshua" would have been a better rendition, and it would have since the successor to Moses had the same name our Messiah has. The NT translators went from the Greek, however, and so we end up with Jesus. Had they gone from the Hebrew we would have been calling him Joshua or Yeshua ALL ALONG.

Because I NOW know this, I call him Yeshua. I am not asking you to change, I don't care what you call him, that is between you and him, not you and I. Please be blessed!

The name of Moses' helper Joshua is from Hebrew and that is pretty well undisputed because the scriptures of the old covenant were written mainly in Hebrew and the five books of the Torah are generally thought to have been written in Hebrew from their beginning

- though if Moses truly were the author then he would not have been able to use Hebrew script since it did not exist when he was alive -​

but the name of Moses helper in Acts 7:45 is spelled as Jesus so one can see a link between Joshua and Jesus as the written forms of that name in Hebrew and Greek respectively. However the English translators of the new testament had no choice but to use Greek or Latin as the source language for their translations because the ancient manuscripts from which they did their translations were written in Greek or Latin. They could not use Hebrew as the source language because the new testament wasn't written in Hebrew and Hebrew translations from the Greek are more of a modern age phenomenon than an ancient one. On the other hand there are some early manuscript translations in the Aramaic language of most of the new testament.

 

[Ken Rank]

The name of Moses' helper Joshua is from Hebrew and that is pretty well undisputed because the scriptures of the old covenant were written mainly in Hebrew and the five books of the Torah are generally thought to have been written in Hebrew from their beginning

- though if Moses truly were the author then he would not have been able to use Hebrew script since it did not exist when he was alive -​

but the name of Moses helper in Acts 7:45 is spelled as Jesus so one can see a link between Joshua and Jesus as the written forms of that name in Hebrew and Greek respectively. However the English translators of the new testament had no choice but to use Greek or Latin as the source language for their translations because the ancient manuscripts from which they did their translations were written in Greek or Latin. They could not use Hebrew as the source language because the new testament wasn't written in Hebrew and Hebrew translations from the Greek are more of a modern age phenomenon than an ancient one. On the other hand there are some early manuscript translations in the Aramaic language of most of the new testament.

Again, in 300BC when the Septuagint was translated, Joshua... i.e. Yehoshua was rendered as Iesous. So it was already the practice to take Yehoshua (or Yeshua) into Greek as Iesous. Acts was written in Greek so it would have rendered Yehoshua (Joshua, Moses' successor) as Iesous. Hence there had been confusion by many for a long time when it comes to Acts 7:45 because they thought it was speaking about MESSIAH. It is not... the confusion is simply in the language.

You are wrong about using Yeshua being modern... it is the name he heard with his own ears. KJ English was not used in Judea in the first century. Seriously.... even the 1611 does NOT have Jesus in there, it has the Latin transliteration of the Greek transliteration which originates from the Hebrew, even according to Strong's.

Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.
Total KJV occurrences: 975

Of Hebrew origin, not English or Greek.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
You are wrong about using Yeshua being modern... it is the name he heard with his own ears. KJ English was not used in Judea in the first century. Seriously.... even the 1611 does NOT have Jesus in there, it has the Latin transliteration of the Greek transliteration which originates from the Hebrew, even according to Strong's.
...

Your post refers to Strong's as if it were a reliable authority but it isn't very reliable. It's too old for one thing. For another its author(s) were not aware that Koine Greek was a distinct dialect of Greek that was not some kind of peculiar form of Attic Greek (some people thought it was a special Holy Spirit Greek vocabulary). And your comment about the KJV and Jacobean English is true enough but quite irrelevant.

A more recent, and equally brief, definition is found in the New American Standard Concondance. It says:

Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous; of Heb. or. H3091; Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr.: - Jesus (904), Jesus’ (7), Joshua (3).​

and H3091 is defined thus

יהושׁוּע
Yehoshua or
יהושׁע
Yehoshua (221c); from H3068 and H3467; “the Lord is salvation,” Moses’ successor, also the name of a number of Isr.: - Jeshua (28), Joshua (219).​

​

 

[Messy]

Well, one thing's for sure, it isn't Yahshua, lol.
http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/wha...s-really-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus/

 

[Ken Rank]

In any event... learning about the culture, language, idiom usage, and rules of exegesis unique to first century Judea is an important thing. If somebody like Paul uses a certain rule of interpretation in his writings, and that rule is DESIGNED to affect the context of what is being said... shouldn't we take the time to learn about that rule? And the thing is, Paul studied under Gamaliel, Hillel's grandson and Hillel had one of two schools of Pharisaical thought early in the first century. Hillel recognized within the Scripture (Torah and Prophets and Psalms at that time) that God through the Prophets was using certain methods to gets points across. Hillel wrote these 7 things down and they became known as "The Rules of Hillel." Paul uses them upwards to 60 times in his letters and we are not even taught those rules exist.... and they are designed to affect context.

So that is one area where studying the roots of the faith is a good thing.

Peace to you all.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

Your post refers to Strong's as if it were a reliable authority but it isn't very reliable. It's too old for one thing. For another its author(s) were not aware that Koine Greek was a distinct dialect of Greek that was not some kind of peculiar form of Attic Greek (some people thought it was a special Holy Spirit Greek vocabulary). And your comment about the KJV and Jacobean English is true enough but quite irrelevant.

A more recent, and equally brief, definition is found in the New American Standard Concondance. It says:

Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous; of Heb. or. H3091; Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr.: - Jesus (904), Jesus’ (7), Joshua (3).​

and H3091 is defined thus

יהושׁוּע
Yehoshua or
יהושׁע
Yehoshua (221c); from H3068 and H3467; “the Lord is salvation,” Moses’ successor, also the name of a number of Isr.: - Jeshua (28), Joshua (219).​

Again, believe whatever you want on this. Jesus was Jewish and they spoke Hebrew in the Temple when they read the scrolls and they spoke Aramaic as the common language of the day. Some learned Greek for business reasons, otherwise, they spoke Aramaic. We have physical proof of this, not just in Scripture but outside. The Targumim which are basically commentary/paraphrases of the Torah and Prophets were written in 30 to 10BC and are in Aramaic. If they were speaking Greek as many suppose, it would make no sense to put a study guide out in a language not being used.

Incidentally, Koine Greek is a Semitic Greek. It is to Greek what Yiddish is to German.

So, when Jesus was born he was not called Jesus... he was not called Iesus and he was not given a Greek name. I don't really know what your argument is... you are sharing a concordance entry as if it supports you. It doesn't... there was no J in >>ANY<< language prior to the late 1500's and when it was created it carried the Y sound. So Joshua would have been pronounced Yoshua. Jerusalem was Yerushalom, Jeremiah was Yermeyahu, etc. This is well established fact... if you are out of your comfort zone considering other things, I would stay where you are for now. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me, I didn't even start the language discussion here... I was content just sharing why studying the roots of the faith has blessed me in different ways.

So, if it is all the same to you, if there is not another post to address on language when I post this reply, I will not reply to one again in this thread. You are welcome to create a new thread and let me know about it (I don't come to these boards often) or look me up... this is my real name.

Peace.
Ken Rank