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

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The word, prophesy, means to teach.
It does not necessarily mean to make a prediction.
He was, though, making a prediction.
The lesson here that Ezekiel was acting out, is that a situation like that, where he was playing the part of The Lord, is unbearable and there comes a limit to His bearing the weight of the sin He was witness to.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

No, no!

Bro!

I have it on good authority.

Well, since you put it THAT way!

reply to post by jmdewey60


The power of meaning is imbued in he who chooses carefully his associations. What is there to be gained by associating the compassion that Christ represents with a sword weilding warrior? Those that know Jesus defend those meanings he represents, and sometimes benefit by doing so at a personal level, that's why the message of Christ has survived, even with all the evil done in his name. Unfortunately false association, is prevelant and the lack of spirituality in our societies reflect this.

reply to post by amodedoma
I admit to oversimplifying things.
Real profound explanations may be a bit more than I can quite muster.
I think you do well with delving into the complexity of the matter, so thanks for that insight.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The word, prophesy, means to teach.
It does not necessarily mean to make a prediction.
He was, though, making a prediction.
The lesson here that Ezekiel was acting out, is that a situation like that, where he was playing the part of The Lord, is unbearable and there comes a limit to His bearing the weight of the sin He was witness to.

Come on, we both know "prophesy" and "teach" carry different connotations. I teach 4 year olds, does that make me a prophet?

reply to post by jmdewey60


members of the body of Christ,not those who call themselves Christians(bush,hitler,many many more) but those who sacrifice their life on this earth to do the will of GOD understanding our own different purpose in life, we know GOD is with us because we witnessed his miracles in our life. i was not born in to this he chose us, we dint choose him, if i told you my roots and life story you wold not believe it but all that doesnt matter, you still wouldnt believe... i learned about life threw experience nobody told me or gave me any thing i did years in prison former gang members murderas in my family arrived im this counrty by drug lords and i am verry appreciated towards god for choosing me as his son and bracking the generational curse that our ancestors left us with(on of my ancestors was a pope i can not mention names but it was in the 1500 century

reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST
I have family who are Sicilian and at the very heart of the Mafia, so I can relate a bit.

Too late to edit that last post, I was going to add something but I had to take a trip to the store.
I have a copy of a book that you can buy on Amazon but was given to me as a sort of family album.
Just in case anyone was wondering what I was talking about and why would I use a "judgmental" word like that. It is part of my response to what SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST was saying where he has a sort of troubled background because of relations. Anyway the book is, Bound by Honor: A Mafioso's Story, by Bill Bonanno.
So it is not like I came out of the blue with that word.

I am looking at a web site I found while googleing, greek has no j.
Here is a quote from the article,
"By using substitute names, churchianity has denied the sacred Name."
No, it is the original name (the article was lumping Jehovah in with Jesus as his objects of criticism, while I am only covering the fist name in this thread), as written in the NT.
Also, no, it is Christianity, not churchianity, since there was no change in the NT to make it into, Jesus, from something else. The NT is the Christian Bible.
The "sacred name" part is what got me wanting to make a comment about this sentence. Is this a form of idolatry? I think it may be. What seems right to me is that Jesus took a name that was despised by the scribes and Pharisees and the temple upper class priests as not being of Jewish purity, and foreign, and gave the thing of no value and no sacredness, a value on account of the infinite value he gave it through his own good reputation and the highest endorsement by proclamation from God, as being his very son.
This, I believe goes along with the theme of Isaiah of the suffering servant who Paul thinks of as a type of what Jesus did, which was to raise the status of us, by being one of us and still receiving all the gifts from God befitting someone who never wavered in their faithfulness.
Taking that away from Jesus takes away the concept of the great work of Jesus, to make the base noble. Making Jesus this noble and honor worthy person at the start makes him a person who achieved nothing.
As a side note an the topic of foreign, I was thinking yesterday about Paul being a Jew of Jews and having all the best credentials, but probably one, which I venture to say was the "of Tarsus" attached to his name. When he says he was a witness to the stoning of Stephen, why did he hold the cloaks instead of throwing a stone himself? Likely, to me, was that, despite every other qualifying attribute, he was still a foreigner in the eyes of those who felt they had the right to actively participate in what they considered to be a righteous and holy act in conformity with the Law.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by autowrench

 

To be a slave to the Lord of Love is to be set free for freedom's sake, to freely love, as we are first loved.

There's one particular transcendant frame of reference you've not considered, and you still ought to forgive your mother, which will set you free.

God Bless,
NAM

To be a slave to an unknown "Lord" is not a think I would wish to do, friend. Of course you can do as you wish, that is your right. The man you think of as your Lord is but a man, remember that, and I believe he came with a message, not to start a religion, or to elevate himself to a God.

Goddess Bless.

reply to post by autowrench

I believe he came with a message, not to start a religion, or to elevate himself to a God.

No one can come down from heaven except the one who has gone into heaven. Then, "The one who comes from heaven is above all." This is all a bit enigmatic but there is a way to understand it, I think, that this "above all" concept is sounding a bit like, God. Or at least an element of what God is all about. Then there is a circular nature to what it is that he is describing, where one thing becomes another, then another, but it is somehow through all this, the same person. If you look at the OT for something Jesus is using to make his analogy, you would find a prophecy about the Word of God being here and not something far away, as if we had to send someone up to heaven to bring it back so we can examine it to see what we are supposed to be doing. He is taking that prophecy and saying he is the fulfillment of it, where he is through his own person, bringing God to us by making it close, to where it is right beside us.

I want to post some info from Wikipedia, so I will enclose those things directly quoted in off-site quote boxes. They are all things you can look up on Wikipedia so I don't know if I need to reference every quote.

Many Rastafarians learn Amharic as a second language, as they consider it to be a sacred language.

Amharic is a Semitic language spoken in Ethiopia. It is the second most-spoken Semitic language in the world, after Arabic. . .

Āfeworq Gebre Īyesūs (Amharic: አፈ ፡ ወርቅ ፡ ገብረ ፡ ኢየሱስ ፡ ዘብሔረ ፡ ዘጌ?; Italian: Afevork Ghevre-Jesus; July 10, 1868 - September 25, 1947) was an Ethiopian writer, who wrote the first novel in Amharic. . .

I downloaded the first chapter of Mathew in Amharic and deciphered the alphabet which is Ge'ez, to see how it was written and pronounced. The example above, of the writers name matches up with the Bible I downloaded from St. Takla.org which is really a modern translation from the Greek, and not some old version that has been handed down in that language for hundreds of years. The spelling in the Ge'ez is different, between the name above, and the name for Jesus in the Mathew translation but my pronunciation of it (arrived at by going around following various links in Wikipedia and studying the nomenclature and listening to the little sound bite examples of the sounds) does match the phonetic spelling in the example, Īyesūs.
I don't know what conclusion can be gained from these hours of research, other than maybe what I was discussing with WarminIndy, about how would you translate the Greek word for Jesus into a Semitic language. Here is how it is done. You match up as close as you can using the alphabet and phonetics available to that language, to what the Greek name is.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I take it this was your poor attempt at trolling?

If you really wanted an answer to this question you would sought about it in a completely different way...

How this thread reached 34 pages is beyond me.

More tid bits from Wikipedia:

. . .gave rise to Hellenistic Judaism in the Jewish diaspora which sought to establish a Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language of Hellenism.
. . .The major literary product of the contact of Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint, as well as the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch etc.) dating to the period. Important sources are Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Some scholars consider Paul of Tarsus a Hellenist as well.

Notice on the first quote, it says, that this religion "within" the language of the Hellenzed world, that would be, Greek.
The Wikipedia article implies that ther may have been a surge in this movement around 165 BC, and then sort of got absorbed into other things with the increased popularity of Christianity.

The Septuagint
The translation process was undertaken in stages between the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE, initially in Alexandria, but in time possibly elsewhere too. Although the translation was not completed for some time, it reached completion before 132 BCE.
Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX.
the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.

It may be safe to assume that the making of the Septuagint was instigated by Jews living in Greek speaking places like Alexandria, and that those people spoke Greek themselves.
Christians including Jesus seem somehow to be able to read Greek. Interesting to think about the people who became his disciples were at the far reaches of where Jews lived in what was once the ancient northern kingdom, and the Jews of the temple in Jerusalem assumed that he was a Samaritan. They were easily identifiable by their speech, as illustrated in the Story of Peter's denial.
If you go through the list in the upper quote box, of the various writings, including the Septuagint, you find out they were all in Greek, though some are thought to have been at some time in Hebrew or Aramaic.
The conclusion I come to is that there were probably a lot more Jews in the time of Jesus who spoke Greek than there were who did not.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The conclusion I come to is that there were probably a lot more Jews in the time of Jesus who spoke Greek than there were who did not.

Unless I'm mistaken, the name John is an original Greek name. The whole question of Zechariah naming his son John as commanded by an angel seems significant. LK 1:13 even though no previous family member had such a name. Then this same angel tells Mary to name her son Jesus LK 1:31. If this angel spoke a Greek name in the first case, couldn't he also speak Greek in the second?

reply to post by pthena
Grk “you will call his name John.” The future tense here functions like a command. This same construction occurs in v. 31.
quoting: Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

The two times, of the name John, and Jesus are worded in the same way, as commandments.
I probably should check on the name, John but I know I have already read where the more religious Jews back in Hyrcanus' time did not like it that he took a "Greek" name.
I was also reading tonight in articles in Wikipedia about Apocrypha that there was one current in Jesus' time, Jubilees, that contained a prophecy that the Messiah would come from John Hyrcanus' line.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60

The conclusion I come to is that there were probably a lot more Jews in the time of Jesus who spoke Greek than there were who did not.

Unless I'm mistaken, the name John is an original Greek name. The whole question of Zechariah naming his son John as commanded by an angel seems significant. LK 1:13 even though no previous family member had such a name. Then this same angel tells Mary to name her son Jesus LK 1:31. If this angel spoke a Greek name in the first case, couldn't he also speak Greek in the second?

Even if the angel was speaking Greek, can you provide a source that affirms that Greek has a "J"?

This thread has had more than 600 replies with only 2 flags.

It's quite sad really, although it does remain a good example of how to create a lot of noise while doing nothing productive for the faith.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
'J' in Greek looks like an I, and sounds like an I, it's called iota, commonly taken to be I. When combined with another vowel, to form a diphthong, it often sounds like a Y. So 'Iēsoûs' sounds alot like how Spanish pronounces Jesus except with more of a Y sound rather than H.

Actually, after looking at my old Dana and Mantley book, IE, iota eta, isn't one of the listed diphthongs.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by NOTurTypical
'J' in Greek looks like an I, and sounds like an I, it's called iota, commonly taken to be I. When combined with another vowel, to form a diphthong, it often sounds like a Y. So 'Iēsoûs' sounds alot like how Spanish pronounces Jesus except with more of a Y sound rather than H.

Actually, after looking at my old Dana and Mantley book, IE, iota eta, isn't one of the listed diphthongs.

HERE

I asked you for an example of the "J" or phonetic equivalent in Greek.