Hebrew-Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Jeżeli chcesz się podzielić swoim świadectwem - to właśnie tutaj.
Post Reply
Posts: 19
Joined: 25 Jul 2011, 14:27
Location: Radomsko

Hebrew-Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Post by Itaatkar » 25 Jul 2011, 17:50

TYLKO dla znających Język Angielski!
Hebrew/Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Textual analysis and scholarship supporting
an original Hebrew New Testament


We of Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua accept both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and generally follow the King James translation because many reference works are based upon that version.
We do not accept, however, the substituted names and common titles of our heavenly Father and His Son. We also object to the Hellenized names give to the Hebrew worthies in the New Testament, such Hezekiah appearing as "Ezekias" (Mat. 1:9), and Judah (Yahudah) as "Judas" (Mat. 1:2).
Beyond just names, churchianity itself is tainted with Greek thinking, Hellenized creeds, and unscriptural practices derived from Greco-Roman infusions through a Greek-translated New Testament.
Scholarship is increasingly validating the case for a Hebrew original New Testament. We include some of their documentation in this short study.
Examining all the evidence, we conclude that the New Testament was inspired in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then later translated into Greek. The testimony to this is voluminous and logical. One needs only to consider that the writers were themselves Hebrews, and "while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew" (Companion Bible, appendix 94).
At the end of this article is a list of scholars and their treatises supporting an original Hebrew New Testament. This list is by no means comprehensive. Other enlightened experts have come to the same realization that the New Testament was originally a collection of Hebrew works. The Bible's Hebrew writers were led by the Holy Spirit to write in their native Hebrew language, just as Paul (Shaul) was spoken to from On High in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14.

New Testament Based on Old
The inquiring Bible student soon realizes that the New Testament is undeniably Hebrew in grammar, idiom, and thinking. This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth for the New Testament believer. If the New Testament is rooted in the Hebrew Language, then its teachings also derive from the Hebrew culture and are embedded in the Hebrew - and not pagan Greek - view of truth.
Those who would object to this reality must be asked the question, does arguing for a Greek New Testament bring one closer to the truth, or take one further from it, knowing that the Old Testament is a thoroughly Hebrew work? Is the New Testament a complete replacement of Old Testament teachings, with entirely new truth flavored with Hellenistic thought, practice, and understanding?
Not according to the Apostle Paul. He wrote that the New Testament is built on the foundation of the Old Testament prophets as well as the apostles, Ephesians 2:20. Yahshua the Messiah gave the directive to "search the Scriptures," John 5:39. The only "scriptures" extant at that time were those of the Old Testament. The New Testament writings were not yet finished and compiled.
In His parable of Lazarus, Yahshua again advised the unknowing to listen to "Moses and the prophets," meaning the Old Testament, Luke 16:29. It was these same Old Testament Scriptures that the "noble Bereans" used to establish truth in Acts 17:11, and the very ones Paul told Timothy would make one perfect, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Aside from approaching truth from the right scriptural foundation, there is another important reason for coming to grips with the original language of the New Testament.
One of the arguments advanced against the verity of the sacred Names is that the Names would appear as "God" (Theos) and "Jesus" in the New Testament Greek text. The logic goes, if such titles and names are in the "original" text, then who are we to change them to something else?
Apart from this argument's erroneous premise ("God" is not the same word as the Greek Theos: "Jesus" is only partly a Greek term), we must ask, is it legitimate to change someone's name simply because you are writing about him in some other language? Names are transliterated, not translated.
If a book about the president of the United States were written in or translated into Russian, would the author or translators look for a Russian equivalent name for "George Bush"? Of course not. His name would still appear as George Bush.
By the same token, the Father's and Son's Names are the same in every language. Therefore we must call on them by their names revealed through the Hebrew tongue. There is no more a Russian equivalent name for "George Bush" than there is a Greek or English equivalent of the Hebrew "Yahweh" and "Yahshua." "God", "Lord", and "Jesus" are not equivalents, they are replacements.

Hebrew Words Out of Place?
A peculiar discrepancy within the New Testament is this: if the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, why does it contain many untranslated Hebrew words? Why did the writers go to all the trouble of preserving Hebrew terms in their Greek writings?
The only valid explanation is that the Greek language had no equivalent words for these uniquely Hebrew terms taken from an original Hebrew text and translated into Greek.
These Hebrew survivals attest to a Hebrew original - and a Greek (and English) translation that brought them across unchanged from the Hebrew.
The following HEBREW words are included in the King James New Testament, as taken from the Greek translation (some are Aramaic).
Abba ("dearest father"); Messiah ("Anointed one"); Rabbi ("my teacher"); hosanna ("Save! We beseech"); Amen (suggests trust, faithfulness); talitha cumi ("maid arise"); ephphatha ("be opened"); corban ("a dedicated gift"); Sabbath ("repose", "desist" from exertion); Satan ("adversary"); mammon ("riches"); raca ("to spit in one's face"); cummin (herb); Maranatha ("Master, I pray you overthrow"); Passover ("pass over"); Emmanuel (title meaning "El with us"); Eli lama Sabachthani ("my El, why have you forsaken me?")
Even more compelling evidence for a New Testament originally composed in Hebrew is found in the clear Hebrew word order extant in the New Testament. Many sentences contain the verb-noun reversal common to Hebrew and Semitic languages.
Scholars also have long recognized that the grammar of the New Testament does not befit good Greek, but does reflect excellent Hebrew grammar.
In addition, many Hebraic idioms and expressions are scattered throughout the New Testament. Had the original been composed in Greek, these sayings would have been put into Greek form and expression.
For example, what did Yahshua and others mean by statements that don't make good sense in Greek (Or English) but are powerful in the Hebrew? Such expressions include: "If your eye is evil" (Matt. 6:23); "let the dead bury the dead" (Matt. 8:22); "for if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry" (Luke 23:31), and "thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Paul in Rom. 12:20).
Numerous examples of Semitic poetry and reverse couplets (chiasmus) are dead giveaways to the original Hebrew of these books. Hebrew is also distinct for its colorful descriptions of simple, common acts.
For example, a beautiful expression in classical Hebrew is found in Luke 16:23: "...he lift up his eyes...and saw..." Other sayings peculiar to Hebrew and found in the Evangels include: "Lay these sayings in your years," "Cast out your name as evil," "He set his face to go," and "The appearance of his countenance was altered."
Whole sentences or paragraphs in the New Testament can be retranslated word for word back into the Hebrew. Luke 10:5-6 is just one example: "And into whatsoever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again." This passage is a synthesis of vivid Hebrew idioms unknown in the Greek.

Greek Unpopular in Palestine
Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew (see listing of these scholars included herein). Early "church fathers" validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (see Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius' Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36).
Hebrew was the language of Judah and Galilee in the first century. Its sister language, Aramaic, remained the secondary tongue and the language of commerce. Jews in this area were not Greek-speaking. Their revulsion to the Greeks and the Greek language derives from the fact that the Maccabees had just defeated the Greeks and driven them and their pagan defilement from the Temple and Palestine.
The eminent first century Jewish historian, priest, and scholar Josephus admitted that he could not speak Greek fluently and that the Jews frowned on any Jew who did.
"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations" (Antiquities, 20:11:2).
If this illustrious scholar was unable to speak Greek sufficiently, how could the uneducated disciples write their books in Greek? From what we've learned, why would they even want to do so?

A Hebrew Writing to Hebrews
The common perception is that Paul was a Hellenist Jew from Tarsus who wrote his letters to Greek-speaking assemblies in Asia minor, Rome and Greece.
Paul (Heb. "Shaul") was first and foremost a Pharisee - a Jewish sect opposed to Hellenization. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and a "Hebrew of Hebrews," Philippians 3:5. A note in the NIV Study Bible says the expression "Hebrew of Hebrews" means "in language, attitudes and life-style."
Paul was educated at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor of Hebrew law, Acts 22:3. Although he was born in Tarsus (a city speaking mainly Aramaic), Paul grew up in Jerusalem, the center of Pharisaic Judaism, Acts 22:3.
The epistles Paul wrote were to various assemblies of the Dispersion. Each assembly was composed of a nucleus group of Jews and supplementary collections of gentiles (read about the Thessalonia Assembly, Acts 17:1-4, as well as the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 10:1-2). The converted Jews in these assemblies would receive Paul's letters and then teach the gentiles among them. It wasn't the gentiles who were converting Jews to a Grecian-Roman faith with a Greek Savior and doctrines of mystery worship!
Typically Paul went first to the synagogue when he traveled to contact these and other assemblies (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:1; 17:10, 18:4, 19:8). The language of the second Temple and synagogues at this time was Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
His letters in Hebrew to these Jews (and gentiles) of the various assemblies would reflect his mission to take the Good News to "the Jew first and then to the Greek," Romans 1:16.
As an example, Paul specifically addressed Jews of the Corinthian assembly: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1-2).

Truth from Greek or Hebrew?
Understanding basic truth is to know that Yahweh chose the Hebrew peoples with whom to make a Covenant and through whom to bring the truth.
How much of a gentile should the True Worshiper be who is bathing in Scriptures first delivered to Hebrew patriarchs, Hebrew prophets, Hebrew apostles and lived by a Savior from the human lineage of King David? Paul was no champion of the gentile cause. He was the champion of a Hebrew Messiah and scriptures given in a Hebrew Old Testament. These were what he taught in his epistles. Note:
"But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). "Law and prophets" refers to the Old Testament Scriptures.
Which culture, world-view, and mentality should prevail among True Worshipers today? A Greek-gentile heritage? Or the birthright of those grafted into the promised of Israel established by the Heavenly Father Yahweh Himself?
Paul wrote to the assembly at Rome, "Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Elohim, and the promises" (Romans 9:4).
If Christianity were honest with itself, it would openly acknowledge that it derives its faith from Hebrew and not Greco-Roman Scriptures. That its salvation comes from a Savior who came as a Hebrew not to establish a new religion but to build on what went before. Yahshua and the Scriptures are Hebrew.
If this one pivotal truth were taught today, real understanding of the Scriptures would break out everywhere, and the Bible would at last be revealed.

Scholars Who Support A Hebrew Original New Testament
Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New

? Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety.
? D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety.
? E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.
? Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29.
? Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.
? Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.
? Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.
? Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.
? Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.
? Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.
? Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.
? Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and The Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.
? Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.
? Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.
? Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, (1927) p. 7.
? Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.
? R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.
? Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.
? Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.
? Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.
? F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety

Ciekawią mnie refleksje jakie wyciągną z tego znający język angielski.
Last edited by Itaatkar on 25 Jul 2011, 17:55, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 19
Joined: 25 Jul 2011, 14:27
Location: Radomsko

Re: Hebrew-Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Post by Itaatkar » 25 Jul 2011, 17:54

How The Savior's Name Was Changed

Superstition, ignorance, and the dynamics of language led to a change in the Savior?s Name, to a name He never had!

THE SAVIOR WAS BORN in Bethlehem of Judea of a Jewish virgin who spoke Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic), a Semitic dialect. He was born into a society where Hebrew was the common language. The angel Gabriel had announced to Miriam (Mary) the mother that the Child about to be born would save His people Israel from their sins. His Name, therefore, would literally reflect this meaning and mission.
The Bible shows that whenever people were spoken to from On High, it was always to those who were familiar with or spoke the Hebrew language. Hebrew no doubt was spoken in the Garden of Eden. The Bible is a Hebrew book, given to spirit-filled Hebrew writers. The only language spoken for the first 1757 years until the Tower of Babel incident was Hebrew. We must conclude, therefore, that Hebrew is the heavenly language.
Genesis 10:30 reveals that the tribes of Shem did not join the project at the plains of Shinar (Genesis 11:2) where the tower of Babel was built. According to Genesis 10, they dwelled at Mesha, in the foothills of Mount Sephar . Their Hebrew language was not changed.
With all those facts before us, we must ask, why do our Bibles call the Savior by the name Jesus that is neither Jewish nor Hebrew? Jesus has no translation in any language.
Why would a Jewish maiden, whose native tongue was Hebrew, living in a Jewish community of Hebrews, who had been addressed by the celestial messenger Gabriel, give her newborn a hybrid Latin-Greek name that carries no such meaning as Savior in either language? The Greek word for savior is "soter," while the Latin is "salvare." No part of this word is found in "Jesus," a name with no etymological meaning. Recall that the angel said His Name would be related to His purpose as Savior.

Jesus Is Not the Name
The fact is, ?Jesus? is not His name, and never was. The renowned Bible scholar and archaeologist Ernest Renan writes that the Savior was never called Jesus in His life!
Furthermore, there is not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "j" in the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "j." Neither is there a letter "j" in the Greek alphabet.
Even our English "j" is of recent origin, appearing in English only 500 years ago, when it often replaced the letter "i," usually at the beginning of a word. The question before us is, what was the Savior's name before there was a letter "j"? For some 1500 years He obviously was called by another name that could not have contained the letter "j."
Would His Jewish disciples call Him by a hybrid Greek-Latin name when the Bible says they were unlearned and ignorant men? (Acts 4:13). They were common fishermen who spoke Hebrew or perhaps the closely related Aramaic dialect. Their Hebrew speech was then translated into Greek by linguists who gave us the record in our Bibles. (Write for our ministudy, "Was the New Testament Written in Greek?")
In this study we will pursue the origin of the English Jesus, and present evidence from both the Bible and secular sources revealing that the name given from On High was the Hebrew name "Yahshua, "the same name as the Old Testament son of Nun whom we know as Joshua.

A Son Carries His Father's Name
The Savior clearly avowed, "I am come in my Father's Name, "John 5:43. This passage means that He carried His Father's Name. Its meaning is not limited solely to His coming by authority or command of the Heavenly Father.
Just as today the family name is passed on from father to son, we would expect Yahshua to bear the name of the Heavenly Father, AND come with his authority. In the Middle East a name carries far more significance and encompasses deeper implications than names in today's Western society. There is a reason the Savior was born in a Middle East society that even today holds one's name in high regard.
The Savior went on to say that although the people did not receive Him, if another would come in his own name, him they would receive. He added that Moses had written of Him, likely a reference to Exodus 15:2, "Yah...has become my salvation," [Hebrew =shua, i.e., Yah-shua]. (See also Deut. 18:15-19.)
As already stated, the Savior's Name essentially is the same as that of Joshua (pronounced "Yoshua"), the son of Nun, Numbers 13:16. Joshua's name originally was Hoshea, or Hoshua, but Moses had prefixed the short or poetic form of the sacred Name, Yah, calling Him Yahoshua, meaning Salvation of Yah.
From the Babylonian captivity onward, the "o" sound was dropped, according to linguistic authorities, and by the time of the Savior's birth the name was no longer "YahOshua," but became Yahshua. This custom of shortening names is commonplace. For example, "bedlam" comes from Bethlehem , Jon from Jonathan, and Liz or Beth from Elizabeth .
The Savior Yahshua indeed came in the name of His Father, for His very name means "the Salvation of YAH." His name contains the sacred, poetic, heavenly family name Yah: YAHshua.
One has but to look at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the King James Bible where the hybrid "Jesus" erroneously appears. It is obvious that scribes went through the King James Bible and everywhere changed the true name of Yahshua to Jesus. With overzealous intent, the name Joshua (Yahshua) the son of Nun had been mistakenly replaced with the hybrid "Jesus" as well! Later KJV revisions and newer Bible versions have replaced the more proper Joshua.

No Other Name Has Salvation
Salvation comes through Yahshua the Messiah. Salvation is through Him alone. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
None other name! That is the same name given by the angel Gabriel to the mother of Yahshua before He was born.
Please note that your Bible specifically says there is no other Name! It does not say there no other "person," which might allow you to call Him by whatever name you wish. Yahshua is the only Name by which we have salvation. There is no other name than Yahshua, which literally means the salvation that Yahweh has sent.
In talking with the penitent Jews at Pentecost, Peter was inspired to give this special Name through which we are to receive salvation. He did not say to be baptized in the person of the Messiah. Peter gave us a very specific command to call on the personal name given by the Father, Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Yahshua Messiah for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
To be sure, the person of Yahshua is important. But the Name He was given by the angel came from On High and carries a very special meaning for the Savior, embodying the Name of Yah-weh the Father Himself. The Name Yah-shua acknowledges both the Father and the salvation that is in His Son Yahshua.
Upon learning truth, we are to walk obediently in it. Most of us have learned deeper truth in small increments, and then put into practice what we have learned. Yahweh will continue to reveal more truth only if we accept and follow those things He has shown us. Why should He give more insight to those who reject and rebel at what He has already revealed?
Once we know the truth, past ignorance does not justify our continuing in ignorance. "The times of this ignorance Yahweh winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent," Acts 17:30. He reveals His truth to those who willingly seek and follow it.

Disguising the Name Yahweh
How did the sacred Name get changed in our Bibles?
The concealing of the four letters of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) representing the Name of the Father first began with the Israelite priests. It was carried further by the ignorance of the early Christian translators.
The superstitious Jewish scribes, aware of Leviticus 24:16 and other verses that demanded reverence for Yahweh's Name, decided the best way to keep from blaspheming His Name would be to invoke substitute titles instead of calling on the proper Name of Yahweh. In their way of thinking, prohibiting the utterance of the sacred Name would eliminate the potential of blaspheming it.
To forestall anyone's reading the Tetragrammaton and vocalizing the name Yahweh, the scribes had placed diacritical marks of the vowels for Adonai over the Hebrew letters for His Name. In fact, the first vowel carried the sound of "e" as in met so the reader would read Yeh, and not blurt out even the short or poetic form, Yah. Theirs was a misguided zeal.

Early Translators Also Hide His Name
The early Christian translators were poor Hebrew scholars. In fact, most were ignorant of Hebrew, knowing only Greek and Latin. Having the attitude of "not wanting anything to do with those detestable Jews," they refused even to learn Hebrew and were thus unable to read the Old Testament in the original language. The main source of their information came from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and not from original Hebrew texts.
The Greek has three declensions of nouns, three genders and five cases. The noun suffix (ending) indicates its use in the sentence, which also is true of most European languages.
For example, in Greek the masculine, nominative singular of our Savior's name ends in "s." This explains why we also have so many proper nouns in the King James Bible whose Hebrew has been changed to end in the Greek form "s," such as Judas, Elias, Jonas, Esaias, Zacharias, Jermias, Annas, and Silas.
These names were lifted directly out of the Greek Septuagint with no consideration that they were Hebrew names (often having the ending "Yah,").
As stated, neither Hebrew nor Greek has a letter "j." Both the Latin and the English letter "i" (with a sound as in police) is regarded as an equivalent to the Hebrew "yothe" (also "yod").
Never should the Savior's Name begin with the sound of "j" as in "jeers" but should begin with the vowel sound "ee."
In the Septuagint, the equivalent Greek letter for Yahshua began with a capital I (or iota), and in the Latin was properly translated with a capital I. Later this became the letter "j" in Latin and was used for a capital "I" in early English, known as the "cursive J."

Where Did 'Yeshua' Come From?
Following the example in the Septuagint, Christian scholars did attempt to transliterate (bring across the sound of) the Savior's Name as it was written in the Greek.
Writing Yahweh's name in the Hebrew texts (hw,.hy.), Jewish Scribes (hundreds of years earlier) inserted a shewa ( . ) instead of the qamets ( ., ), changing the vowel sound "ah" to "eh" to forestall blurting out the short form "Yah" of the Sacred Name. This practice is still found in the erroneous "JEHovah." (While using ?Jehovah? might be considered better than using a substitute title in place of the name of Yahweh, it is still an incorrect transliteration).
Thus, we have the Savior's Name beginning with "JE" when it should be "YAH" as in "halleluYAH." We don't say "halleluYEH."
Using the Greek capital "I" (iota), the Greek translators did not insert the vowel letter "a" (alpha) but had ignorantly accepted the Hebrew diacritical vowel points and used the letter "e" (eta). Thus they began the Savior's name as "Ie."
The Greek has no "h" in its alphabet, only a rough breathing mark at a word's beginning that appears as a reverse apostrophe. No "h" appears in Greek of the poetic form "Yah." In fact from the above, we can see the first part of the Tetragrammaton in Greek would be written" Ie" (with no "h" as they had none) to be consistent with the Jew's rule of "Yeh" to avoid vocalizing the "Yah" sound. Nor did the Jews want in any way to associate Yahweh's Name with that of the Savior's, which might be seen as acknowledging His position as the very Son of Yahweh Who came in His Father's Name.
The Greek language has no "sh" sound, so only the "s" (sigma= s) appears. Thus far, we have the first three letters of the Savior's name, " IES ." In the Greek this is followed by "o" (o= omicron), the sound being short, as in lot. This is followed by the "u"(upsilon = u), sounded as "oo."
The transliteration in Greek, then, is something like ?Ee-ess-oo-uh.? Say it rapidly and we get a fairly close rendition, ?Yesuah,? remembering no ?sh? sound was available. In Greek the Savior's name appears as ?IESOUS" (with the suffix ?s? for the Greek ending). The Latin translation was then made primarily from the Greek text, bypassing the original Hebrew.

Yahshua = Iesous in Greek
As the Savior's Name was then transliterated into the Latin directly from the Greek translation, we have the masculine, nominative singular ending in ?s,? which was erroneously brought into the Latin as Iesous, and later became Iesus.
When the capital ?I? was given a cursive tail around the year 1500 C.E. to become the ?J,? it also took up the sound of the French ?J? as in ?journal?. His name soon was corrupted to ?Jesus? in English.
However, in Latin the ?j? is sounded as ?i? in police, or ?ee?. The Balkan country Yugoslavia was once spelled Jugoslavia, but was pronounced as it is today, Yugoslavia .
Maps at the turn of the century often identified the U.S.S.R. as "Sowjet Russiah." The "j" had the "ee" sound and the "w" had the Germanic "v" sound. The word "major" is pronounced as "mayor" in both Latin and German. June and July are pronounced" Yune" and "Yuly."
All of this may be burdensome and technical, but necessary to show the evidence that the name of the Hebrew Savior is Yahshua. He came in His Father's name, "YAH." Had the Christian translators gone back to the original Hebrew His Name could have been faithfully preserved in the correct form "Yahshua." Instead, His Name was taken from the Greek into Latin, and then English, losing the Hebrew and we end up with a Latinized-Greek hybrid instead of the holy, saving Name Yahshua. It is like taking loose change repeatedly from one pocket to place in another and losing a little of it each time.

Necessity of His Name
His name means "the Salvation of Yah." Nothing like this can be gleaned from the man-made, erroneous name "Jesus," which developed from first the superstitious Jewish scribes, and then perpetuated through the ignorance of Christian scholars who were ridiculed by the Jews for their lack of linguistic knowledge of Hebrew.
Paul reveals, "Yahweh also has exalted [Yahshua] and given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Yahshua every knee should bow..." (Phil. 23:9-10). The Name Yahweh gave to Mary by which His Son was to be called was Yahshua! This can be proved from margin notes in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31 in most Bibles. The translators substituted and disguised the holy Name, giving us the erroneous hybrid Jesus. It simply is not His Name!
Furthermore, Paul says that the entire family of Yahweh will be called by the precious name of "Yah," Eph. 3:15. Some of the prophets carried His name, such as IsaYah, ObadYah, ZephanYah, ZecharYah, and JeremYah.
We are to be given a specific name by the Father, and by which we will be known. How can anyone despise, ridicule and reject the Name Yahweh now, and then love and reverence it ? and be called by it ? in the Kingdom?
Names in the Bible have deep significance and have definite meanings. They give us deeper understanding. He has thus set before us an open door for more truth. His salvation is in the Name of His Son, Yahshua, ?and we are to keep His word and not deny His Name,? Revelation 3:8. Under heaven there is none other name than Yahshua and through Him we have salvation.

Post Reply