People Who Pronounce and Spell the Name of Jesus In Weird Old Testament Variants are Going to Hell

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

I'll kindly stay out of the debate, but just as a heads up, your *english* bible might say Jesus, but that's after filter through koine greek to latin, to english...I'm not aware of any other steps in there.

No.

The KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew. No filtering. It was a direct translation from most ancient texts and fragments available at the time. They got most of it right. Unlike the modern NRSV*, they even put their own issues aside in word choice-- a miracle in itself.

You're both correct. The 1611 KJB was filtered through Koine Greek and Hebrew. But people today use newer versions which have taken the additional filter through Latin, the Vulgate specifically. In the original 1611 KJB the name used for Jesus was "Iesus" and for example the word "judge" is rendered "Iudge".

The letter "J" is a relatively new phonetic addition to Anglicized writings and speech.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So the Nicean Council gave us a New Testament book that people today only read perhaps 10 books from. They ignore James and Peter in favor of Paul.

What? James and 1 ans 2 Peter are just as important as the Pauline epistles. What makes you think that??

I am just saying that there are indeed people who disregard James and Peter. Not all people but some.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

I'll kindly stay out of the debate, but just as a heads up, your *english* bible might say Jesus, but that's after filter through koine greek to latin, to english...I'm not aware of any other steps in there.

No.

The KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew. No filtering. It was a direct translation from most ancient texts and fragments available at the time. They got most of it right. Unlike the modern NRSV*, they even put their own issues aside in word choice-- a miracle in itself.

I'm definitely a big fan of the KJV here, although I currently like the NKJV. However, I've got to give this a yes and a no.

The translators of the KJV also reached out to the Latin Vulgate for some of their translations, mainly as relates to christology, and they didn't use the oldest texts or fragments in all cases. For the old testament, they mainly relied on Bomberg's Hebrew Rabbinic Bible, and the new testament was primarily from Beza's Greek editions. The LLX also figured in throughout.

Regardless as to these details, it did come out with a high level of excellence. Take care.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

I'll kindly stay out of the debate, but just as a heads up, your *english* bible might say Jesus, but that's after filter through koine greek to latin, to english...I'm not aware of any other steps in there.

No.

The KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew. No filtering. It was a direct translation from most ancient texts and fragments available at the time. They got most of it right. Unlike the modern NRSV*, they even put their own issues aside in word choice-- a miracle in itself.

You're both correct. The 1611 KJB was filtered through Koine Greek and Hebrew. But people today use newer versions which have taken the additional filter through Latin, the Vulgate specifically. In the original 1611 KJB the name used for Jesus was "Iesus" and for example the word "judge" is rendered "Iudge".

The letter "J" is a relatively new phonetic addition to Anglicized writings and speech.

I was unaware of translations from Latin without first consulting the original texts. Hmmm. I don;t own any of those.

Speaking of tranflationf! The 1611 also ufed the "f" like charcterf for the "s" fo perhapf we are difcuffing the font and not the fpelling?

(Speaking of translations! The 1611 also used the "f"-like character for the "s" so perhaps we are discussing the font and not the spelling?)

reply to post by WarminIndy

The Father seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. That truth is not to make sure you have to say the name in a language you do not speak, but rather, that you worship Him as He is with His entirety that we as humans only know a little of Him. What we do know of Him, that is only what we are required to worship Him.

Well said, and this goes back to the heart of my point. I don't feel personally that any are obligated to use the original names, as a father will understand and love his children regardless. My point is merely that those who use the original names are not condemned to hell as alleged in the title of the thread, at least.

Thanks friend.

Originally posted by GeistMelange
Heed the book you claim to follow:
James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

It amazes me how people consistently miss the point of everything. The wisdom that is found in any religion is what is important. The things that help us to discover who and what we are. I don't care if you call someone "Carrot" as long as you do it with respect and use their wisdom to make the world a better place. You argue about what to call a fork while you starve to death.

edit on 9/19/2011 by GeistMelange because: (no reason given)

That sounds good unless words have spiritual power.

"Lex orandi, lex credendi" The law of what is prayed is the law of what is believed. To put that another way, what we speak- matters.

reply to post by Praetorius

The translators of the KJV also reached out to the Latin Vulgate for some of their translations, mainly as relates to christology, and they didn't use the oldest texts or fragments in all cases.

In the 1611 version the only portion of the KJB that relied on the Latin Vulgate was portions of the Apocrypha. Not books of the NT.

Big KJB fan here too, but I'm also fond of the ESV.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by GeistMelange
Heed the book you claim to follow:
James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

It amazes me how people consistently miss the point of everything. The wisdom that is found in any religion is what is important. The things that help us to discover who and what we are. I don't care if you call someone "Carrot" as long as you do it with respect and use their wisdom to make the world a better place. You argue about what to call a fork while you starve to death.

edit on 9/19/2011 by GeistMelange because: (no reason given)

That sounds good unless words have spiritual power.

"Lex orandi, lex credendi" The law of what is prayed is the law of what is believed. To put that another way, what we speak- matters.

Absolutely what we speak matters. That's what Jesus meant when He said it's not what enters a man that defiles them, but what comes out of their mouths.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The Father seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. That truth is not to make sure you have to say the name in a language you do not speak, but rather, that you worship Him as He is with His entirety that we as humans only know a little of Him. What we do know of Him, that is only what we are required to worship Him.

Well said, and this goes back to the heart of my point. I don't feel personally that any are obligated to use the original names, as a father will understand and love his children regardless. My point is merely that those who use the original names are not condemned to hell as alleged in the title of the thread, at least.

Thanks friend.

Precisely, we are justified by what He did, not what name we call Him. Jews call Him Yahshua. Greeks call Him Iesus, and the English speaking world calls Him Jesus.

Same Messiah. same selfless act of redemption 2,000 years ago on our behalf.

reply to post by Frira

Neither the traditional interpretation that Yahweh is the One true God and that the Angels mentioned are Angels of that God; nor your view that the the proper interpretation is that Yahweh is one of the Angels, can be refuted by the received text.

Yes, you are most likely correct. Ambiguous actually. So one person who idolizes the genocidal Old Testament as God's word, and gets a spirit boost, which spirit is that? Another person may rejoice in Jesus, and receive his spirit of freedom. Is the one spirit the same as the other? I would answer no. Even if the first pretends to rejoice in Jesus, usually using a name that really means 'Yahweh, giver of law, is my only master'

The only example given the Church of what it is to be fully human so happens to also be fully God. The inverse is true: The only physical example of what it is to be fully God also happens to be fully human.

And there, my friend, is the Gospel I hold-- a very ancient understanding; and in it, the call to transcend this present darkness-- to loose the bonds. So despite our different interpretations, have we not come very close to meaning?

Very close indeed! But I am a Pagan, who believes that God himself died to pass on his life to that which is coming to be through evolution. Jesus is the only example I can name as one who has achieved. He also followed the example of the Father, so he also is not, yet exists as the Holy Spirit, and we are helped thereby as also we share his body and blood, through bread and wine (including unfermented). My understanding could be compared with the heresy Modalism, though not exactly.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

According to the Bible, pretty much everyone including believers are going to Hell anyway so who cares how it's spoken or written?

As you can see, I don't buy into any religion that threatens to punish you for eternity just for being human and making mistakes.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Praetorius

 

The translators of the KJV also reached out to the Latin Vulgate for some of their translations, mainly as relates to christology, and they didn't use the oldest texts or fragments in all cases.

In the 1611 version the only portion of the KJB that relied on the Latin Vulgate was portions of the Apocrypha. Not books of the NT.

Big KJB fan here too, but I'm also fond of the ESV.

The KJV actually is an updated version of the Wycliffe Bible. And the men who translated the KJV did use the Latin Vulgate. The men who translated this were scholars at Cambridge and Oxford.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

And the rules King James ordered it to be translated by
www.av1611.org...

One of these rules that denotes the language of the Bible
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

I think with the diligence ordered for the KJV to be translated it just stands to reason that King James was not going to issue or authorize a book that contained errors. These men were Doctors at Cambridge and Oxford and were well versed in the languages themselves.

Originally posted by LanternOfDiogenes
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

You sir are obviously a Troll! Most certainly no bible scholar at all... you do not seem to know a thing about the book, other than what your one new living testament edition tells you.... you think Yeshua Jesus Yahweh Jehovah is white I bet...the underlying connotations of your thread seem to point toward the fact that you do not believe that Jesus was a Hebrew or spoke Hebrew... why that is important to you I do not know, first he was Sumerian, second no way the dude was white, third he most likely spoke, Greek, Hebrew, Sumerian, and Latin, he was educated as a Rabbi.
Your OP doesn't bring one line of text that suggests you are right. you have not brought anything to the table through out this thread other than in-congruent troll droppings, study your bible study the history of the time and use your intellect. Hell look up the Council of Micea the most ignored bit of the bibles history, the bible was voted vetted and changed to keep Rome from burning to the ground in a religious war...Man cannot vote on the word of god or Jesus divination...which is exactly what they did.

I take you calling me a troll as a personal insult, for your information.
I am as much a Bible scholar as a true Christian should be. I read all the versions since this is very easy to do on the internet. I also read it in the original languages, as well as I can. I am not making my thread about race and I have never brought up the racial characteristics of Jesus on this or any other forum. I believe such things are irrelevant, other than he was called a Jew and that the Gospel genealogies show he was a descendant of David. I don't think Jesus spoke Hebrew as a conversational language. Why I find it important is that people attack the name of Jesus based on the notion that his name had (for some reason) to be a Hebrew name.
You have a lot of personal theories about Jesus but I don't see the relevance to the topic.
I don't have to cite and quote verse because all you have to do is open the Bible to the New Testament and you are likely to see the word, Jesus, on one of the pages. What I am complaining about is people who will quote New Testament verses and delete Jesus and God, and type or paste in, YHWY and Yeshua.
I know more about the Council of Nicaea than most since I am an Arian and so have researched the roots of Arianism. I don't, like yourself, attribute the Council to having done anything about the Canon of the Bible. One of the principles of the Council was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. who had his own list of books of the New Testament that he thought the churches under his jurisdiction should use, which just happens to match what we have today, so, there could be people who extrapolate it into this idea that the Council itself had made such a ruling.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

My friend....
I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry that you fail to understand the concepts of Love, Understanding, Forgiveness, and Compassion. I feel sorry that you fail to understand the two greatest commandments of Jesus (Love God with all your heart and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself -Matthew 22:36-40). I feel sorry that you choose to be opposite in character to Jesus by being judgmental and condemning for mere minor offenses. I feel sorry that through your spiritual path, you have failed to build uniting love inside yourself, instead of separation and superiority.

I thought you were a lot more kind, and more spiritually advanced than this thread and title. It's your belief, who am I to condemn?

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Frira

Neither the traditional interpretation that Yahweh is the One true God and that the Angels mentioned are Angels of that God; nor your view that the the proper interpretation is that Yahweh is one of the Angels, can be refuted by the received text.

Yes, you are most likely correct. Ambiguous actually. So one person who idolizes the genocidal Old Testament as God's word, and gets a spirit boost, which spirit is that? Another person may rejoice in Jesus, and receive his spirit of freedom. Is the one spirit the same as the other? I would answer no. Even if the first pretends to rejoice in Jesus, usually using a name that really means 'Yahweh, giver of law, is my only master'

I'm thinking along the lines of the old Bumper Sticker, "Jesus is Coming!" and then, below, in parenthesis, "and boy is he pissed!"

What I mean is the "warm-fuzzy" Jesus is actually intimidating. Not to belabor an oft made point, but He did say, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword!"

And when He does return (as I believe He will), it is not going to be showering warm-fuzzies upon us. It is going to be one big, ugly, battle.

So then, likewise, is the "genocidal god" concept: I point out that Pharaoh repented, but God hardened Pharaoh's heart SO THAT more tragedy befell the Egyptians. From the Egyptian point of view, God appears to be a genocidal maniac. From a Hebrew point of view, God appears to be Savior-- who came down to bring them up out of bondage. From God's point of view?

I speculate: Upon the death of the many innocent Egyptians, God greeted them with "Well done, my good and faithful servants!" as God would later joyously greet Pharaoh, "Enter this place" (i.e., a Heavenly abode), "which I have prepared for you!"

This reminds me of the Eastern religion text--Hindu, I think-- the one which begins with the spiritual warrior agonizing that a spiritual master he honors is lined up on the other side of the battlefield. The discussion then continues to include wisdom that we do what is required of us in this life on Earth; but in the life to come, whichever of the two after the battle may lie dead-- the animosity will be at an end, and each better for it.

I need to remind myself of that, just now, as I must at this time be particularly mindful of evil done to me long ago--- at great personal cost, and in which I have never found justice. Or the simple, "All will be well, and all will be well, and all matter of things shall be well." says the same.

The only example given the Church of what it is to be fully human so happens to also be fully God. The inverse is true: The only physical example of what it is to be fully God also happens to be fully human.

And there, my friend, is the Gospel I hold-- a very ancient understanding; and in it, the call to transcend this present darkness-- to loose the bonds. So despite our different interpretations, have we not come very close to meaning?

Very close indeed! But I am a Pagan, who believes that God himself died to pass on his life to that which is coming to be through evolution. Jesus is the only example I can name as one who has achieved. He also followed the example of the Father, so he also is not, yet exists as the Holy Spirit, and we are helped thereby as also we share his body and blood, through bread and wine (including unfermented). My understanding could be compared with the heresy Modalism, though not exactly.

I hold myself to a rigorous theological standard; but I don't hold anyone else to it; since I am rather certain that "close enough" works for God. My own part has nothing to do with "close enough" for reason not entirely clear to me.

I'll point out heresy, but not condemn-- because theology is complicated beyond what most people imagine. You, obviously, appreciate the subtleties; and a variation on modalism is a fair place to stand. I disagree with it, but it is still a good place.

But anyway, what you call "evolution" I call "transcendence" and I can't get to where I want to be in this life, but I can get somewhere closer-- and the body and blood through the bread and wine is one of the best tools I have for that. Are you sure about that "pagan" thing? Maybe I have been a pagan and never knew it?

Originally posted by Konstantinos

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

In my Bible it says "Let he without sin cast the first stone" stop judging others, you have no right and are not qualified.

I think most people will realize that I do not have the ability to kill people who I think are bad.
So, you should take my warning of hell as that, a warning. I suggest everyone read their Bible and say some lines from it out loud, where it says, "Jesus is Lord".
Now if you find yourself unable to for any reason, then you have a demon and you need to cast it out.
If you keep your demon for any reason, then most likely, in my opinion, you will go to hell.
Just my bit of advise for today and If you hate me for saying all this, then that would be a demon, too.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Translation

Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source. Following the example of the Geneva Bible, words implied but not actually in the original source were distinguished by being printed in distinct type (albeit inconsistently), but otherwise the translators explicitly rejected word-for-word equivalence.[102] F.F Bruce gives an example from Romans Chapter 5:[103]

Authorized King James Version ~ Wiki

Originally posted by Ghost375
This has to be a troll thread. No one is that dumb.
Jesus was never called "Jesus" until more than 1000 years after his death.
If anything the people calling him "Jesus" are going to hell.

Not sure what you mean since the term (troll) is so broadly used it defies definition. If you mean I want to flame people, well that was not my intention when I started. I did end up pointing out to a few people how they were doing the same sort of judging of me that they were making accusation against me for doing.
The New Testament was written in Greek and apparently there had been people for a long time previous to this, who had the name Jesus in Greek. Now it was not spelled like that exactly but it seems to have been an equivalent using the letters available to them at the time.
Your last line is the sort of thinking which prompted me to start this thread. You are saying that reading your bible will cause one to go to Hell.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
why did anyone take this thread seriously? threads like this getting any attention is exactly why ats seems to be going down the drain, at least in my opinion. this is such a pointless thread that somehow gets more replies than a credible, deservable topic. this thread is literally based on semantics, and these dang religious threads could stand to be made far less often.
no matter, his real name is flying spaghetti monster and if you call him anything else then you rightly deserve no sky cake with angel people, bc of course that is the criteria for heaven bound meat bags. /end mini rant

How would you like it if someone started saying that you were going to Hell because at the fist revelation of the Flying spaghetti monster, he gave his name as, flying spaghetti munster, and all those who us the o will go to hell?

reply to post by Frira

From the Egyptian point of view, God appears to be a genocidal maniac. From a Hebrew point of view, God appears to be Savior-- who came down to bring them up out of bondage. From God's point of view?

I wouldn't want to have been one of those Israelites either.

1CO 10:6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did--and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did--and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did--and were killed by the destroying angel.

That whole generation perished in the desert. Exactly how is that better than what they had in Egypt?

EX 33:1 Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, `I will give it to your descendants.' 2 I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 3 Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way."

Nah! That Yahweh character isn't my God.

Are you sure about that "pagan" thing? Maybe I have been a pagan and never knew it?

Quite sure. Pagan means home grown rather than taught in the city. In other words 'my very own personal religion' regardless of what the orthodox followers of teachers may think of it.