• Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Messiah's name is not "Jesus".

In English his name is Jesus Christ.
In Spanish his name is Jesucristo.
In Italian his name is Gesu Cristo.
In German his name is Jesus Christus.
In Chinese his name is Yesu Jidu.
In Filipino his name is Hesukristo.
In Hindi his name is Yisu Masiha.
In Irish his name is Iosa Criost.
In Samali his name is Ciise Masiix.
In Welch his name is Iosu Grist.
In Maori his name is Ihu Karaiti.

Its rather arrogant to insist that only the Hebrew form of Jesus' name is correct. The vast majority of people in the world do not speak Hebrew or are even familiar with the Hebrew forms of names.
Is Hebrew your native tongue?

או למדת רק מספיק העברית להיות יהיר?


In Christ,
Pilgrimer

P.S. You either missed or ignored that it was the judgment and wrath that were visited upon Israel in fulfillment of the Law and Prophets that proved "who is the blessed and only potentate" and that God "confirmed the covenant" during that 7-year war (70th week) in the middle of which he "caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease" and "destroyed the city and the sanctuary."

New Testament history.
 
Last edited:

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
In English his name is Jesus Christ.
In Spanish his name is Jesucristo.
In Italian his name is Gesu Cristo.
In German his name is Jesus Christus.
In Chinese his name is Yesu Jidu.
In Filipino his name is Hesukristo.
In Hindi his name is Yisu Masiha.
In Irish his name is Iosa Criost.
In Samali his name is Ciise Masiix.
In Welch his name is Iosu Grist.
In Maori his name is Ihu Karaiti.

Its rather arrogant to insist that only the Hebrew form of Jesus' name is correct. The vast majority of people in the world do not speak Hebrew or are even familiar with the Hebrew forms of names.
Is Hebrew your native tongue?

או למדת רק מספיק העברית להיות יהיר?
So now you resort to name calling? Every name on your list is based off of something whether it be "Yeshua" or "Iesous" or "Iesus" or "Jesus". I suspect they are all based on the faulty transliteration of "Yeshua" found in the Greek (Iesous). "Jesus" may be the new English pronunciation of Messiah's name, but the original English form was "Iesus" as the 1611 KJV shows. It was only after the letter "J" was invented around the 16th century that his name was changed to "Jesus". How people back then allowed that to happen is beyond me. Would you allow "Jesus" to be changed to something else if a new letter is invented tomorrow?

No, Hebrew is not my native tongue. English is, but that is irrelevant. Names are transliterated from one language to another as best as possible. That is why "Satan" in Hebrew is "Satan" in English. Or why "Mikhail Gorbachev" is "Mikhail Gorbachev" in English. Or why "Donald Trump" is "Donald Trump" in any language. The name our Savior was born with has undergone several changes from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English resulting in the conglomeration of man-made errors "Jesus".
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So now you resort to name calling?

Just pointing out a danger in studying the original languages or history of the Scriptures. As Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 8:1, knowledge can indeed make people proud and haughty and it is a very common human failing, even for Christians. Years ago I was so excited about finally being able to obtain a copy of the complete works of the famous German New Testament historian Emil Schurer. I had seen his work cited by all the best of the best historians and could not wait for the books to arrive. But on the very first page of the introduction, in the very first paragraph, I was so very disappointed to read what is simply an arrogant assumption that is so common among those who study the original languages or the history of the Scriptures, when Mr. Schurer stated: “No incident in the gospel story, no word in the preaching of Jesus Christ, is intelligible apart from its setting in Jewish history, and without a clear understanding of that world …”

Now I take exception to that claim. He is saying that no on can really “understand” the Gospel without “a clear understanding of Jewish history!” But that’s simply not true. The Gospel accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus is so clear and simple that even the illiterate or uneducated can understand it and be saved, even without any knowledge of Jewish history.

But so often when people study these tangential areas of study they become puffed up and think that their exclusive area of knowledge is necessary to really be able to understand the truth. And it seems to be most common among students of Hebrew who somehow come to the conclusion that it is only when one knows the original Hebrew that one can really know what is true and correct.

It’s a common failing and one that those of us who study the original languages and history and archaeology of the Scriptures should be aware of and strive to not fall victim to. God doesn’t speak exclusively Hebrew, He speaks to every man in his own language. The Scripture says that salvation is by calling on the name of the Lord, not by calling on the Hebrew form of his name.

Every name on your list is based off of something …

Well of course, they are all based off various translations of the original Hebrew name, as are all the proper names in the Bible, even the names of places. If you don’t like the English translation of the Scriptures you are certainly free to use another, but to claim that the name Jesus, which is English for the Hebrew form Yeshua, is NOT the name of the Son of God but only the Hebrew form is correct is nonsense.

I suspect they are all based on the faulty transliteration of "Yeshua" found in the Greek (Iesous). "

Your suspicions would be incorrect. The Greek form “Iseous” of the Hebrew “Yeshua” actually dates back two or three centuries before the birth of Jesus and is the way the name Yeshua was translated to Greek in the Jewish Septuagint. So if there is anything “faulty” about the translation, then you’ll have to blame the Hebrew/Greek Jewish translators (who are probably a bit more informed on the proper translation than either you or whatever source you are getting your information from). This Greek form “Iseous” was subsequently the form used in over 5000 Greek translations of the New Testament as well as writings outside the New Testament.

No, Hebrew is not my native tongue. English is, but that is irrelevant.

I think it is completely relevant. I suspect you were saved in the name of Jesus and only afterward learned that his name in the Hebrew language is Yeshua.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Just pointing out a danger in studying the original languages or history of the Scriptures. As Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 8:1, knowledge can indeed make people proud and haughty and it is a very common human failing, even for Christians.
Are you now accusing me of being proud and haughty? You sounded so spiritual and intelligent until you saw how far apart we are concerning the name issue. Now you sound carnal and childish.

But so often when people study these tangential areas of study they become puffed up and think that their exclusive area of knowledge is necessary to really be able to understand the truth. And it seems to be most common among students of Hebrew who somehow come to the conclusion that it is only when one knows the original Hebrew that one can really know what is true and correct.
It is a FACT that restoring YHWH to the text makes Scripture so much clearer. There are so many Christians that think Yeshua is YHWH because he is "the Lord" and YHWH is erroneously called "the LORD" in the OT.

Your suspicions would be incorrect. The Greek form “Iseous” of the Hebrew “Yeshua” actually dates back two or three centuries before the birth of Jesus and is the way the name Yeshua was translated to Greek in the Jewish Septuagint. So if there is anything “faulty” about the translation, then you’ll have to blame the Hebrew/Greek Jewish translators (who are probably a bit more informed on the proper translation than either you or whatever source you are getting your information from). This Greek form “Iseous” was subsequently the form used in over 5000 Greek translations of the New Testament as well as writings outside the New Testament.
The Greek form is "Iesous", not "Iseous" and I know it dates back before Yeshua's birth. However, the corruption of the common names of other men is not as important as the corruption of a name that YHWH commanded to be given to His Son. I do not blame the ancient translators for this problem. The fault lies with the language itself. It was not possible to bring the "sh" sound over into Greek. However, in English we can bring that sound over, but modern translators failed to do so. We can also bring the "Y" sound and spelling over into English, but prefer the man-made "J" sound and spelling. We have been blessed with the necessary info and ability to restore our Savior's correct name into English, but refuse to do so, preferring to remain in error instead. I refuse to remain in error.

It’s a common failing and one that those of us who study the original languages and history and archaeology of the Scriptures should be aware of and strive to not fall victim to. God doesn’t speak exclusively Hebrew, He speaks to every man in his own language. The Scripture says that salvation is by calling on the name of the Lord, not by calling on the Hebrew form of his name.

Well of course, they are all based off various translations of the original Hebrew name, as are all the proper names in the Bible, even the names of places. If you don’t like the English translation of the Scriptures you are certainly free to use another, but to claim that the name Jesus, which is English for the Hebrew form Yeshua, is NOT the name of the Son of God but only the Hebrew form is correct is nonsense.
...

I think it is completely relevant. I suspect you were saved in the name of Jesus and only afterward learned that his name in the Hebrew language is Yeshua.
Saying or spelling "Yeshua" is NOT speaking or spelling Hebrew. That is simply how the name TRANSLITERATES INTO ENGLISH. All Biblical names are to be TRANSLITERATED, not translated as you say, into whatever language we choose. There is NOTHING wrong with using "Iesous" if your speaking or writing Greek. That is the best Greek can do when transliterating "Yeshua". "Jesus" is the worst we can do in English and "Yeshua" is the best we can do in English.

You never answered my question; "Would you allow "Jesus" to be changed to something else if a new letter is invented tomorrow?" After all, that would be the "new" English version.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Happy Yom Teruah / Day of Trumpets / Day of Shouting!

If you are among those who believe Yeshua (Jesus) fulfilled the reality of this day, please tell me how. What did the shadow point to and what was the reality casting the shadow?

That would depend on what exactly you understand "Yom T'ruah" to foreshadow. On the Day of Trumpets the trumpets sound the t'ruah, the three short blasts that were used throughout the Bible as an alarm to warn the people of impending destruction:

"Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound the t'ruah in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand; A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations. A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as a garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them ... the earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble; the sun and moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining..." Joel 2

And again:

"I will consume all things from off the land, saith the Lord. I will consume man an beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord. I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem ... the great day of the Lord is near, it is near and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of the trumpet and t'ruah against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord; and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord's wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land." Zephaniah 1

And read Jeremiah 4 as well as 49 and the context of this blowing of the t'ruah, the three short blasts that served as an alarm and were to be blown on Yom T'ruah.

Now there was also the tekiah, the shevarim, and the last trump, the tekiah gadolah, and they were used for other purposes, but they are not sounded on Yom T'ruah, only the three short blasts that are an alarm are sounded on that day.

So I think the fulfillment of the "Day of Alarm," which is what Yom T'ruah literally means, was the fulfillment of those chapters above in the Roman/Jewish war when Messiah the Prince in flaming fire took vengeance on that wicked and adulterous generation, just as he will upon those among the nations who are disobedient to the Gospel when he returns to claim the world his blood has purchased (just so I'm not accused of being a full preterist :)).

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
... YHWH's calendar in the heavens ...

That strikes me as odd, to speak of a "calendar in the heavens." Heaven is timeless, eternal, there is no "calendar" marking the passage of days and weeks and years in heaven. A calendar by it's very nature is a product of the earthly realm, a way or marking the passage of time (the literal orbits of the earth, moon, sun and planets). Time, like space, exists only in the created, material universe. So I don't think there actually is such thing as a "calendar in the heavens." So what you are in truth referring to is the calendar of feast days contained in the Law of Moses, a very earth-centric (and I might add a very "land of Israel"-centric) calendar which was based on and intimately tied to the times and seasons of the earthly land of Israel.

Yom Teruah (Day of Trumpets/Shouting), Yom Kippurim (Day of Atonements), and Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles). Each has significance in YHWH's plan of salvation and have not been totally fulfilled yet ...

I wonder if I might get you to reconsider that. We've spoken some about Trumpets, and about Tabernacles, but haven't really talked about the Day of Atonement much, and it's actually rather central to the other two. In fact, the Day of Atonement sacrifices are why the feast preceding it is a Day of Alarm.

I don't know how much you know about the actual sacrifices on Yom Kippur, so allow me a space to sketch in the basics. This was the one and only day that the High Priest was ever allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies and step into the presence of God, of course only after a very elaborate and drawn-out ritual of preparation which I won't go into. But the significant thing about this day was that on this one day the High Priest would enter into the presence of God and would sprinkle blood as an offering to make atonement for sin. He did this twice, once with the blood of a sanctified red heifer for atonement for his own sins and those of his house, and then a second time with the blood of a goat for atonement for the sins of the people.

Now the Law actually required two goats to make atonement for sin (Leviticus 16:7-22). Two lots were cast. One Lot was labeled "For Jehovah" and the goat upon whom this lot fell was sacrificed, and it was the blood of this goat that was sprinkled in the Holy of Holies and in the Holy Place and on all the furnishings and vessels of ministry and on the altar and on the people and made atonement for sin and cleansed the Holy House and the congregation.

The other Lot was labeled "For Azazel." That word Azazel (5799) literally means "goat for departure" and derived from the word ez/aze (5795) which is the word for "goat" and azal (235) which is a primary root word meaning to go away, depart, fail, disappear. Now this second goat, the one upon whom the lot "For Azazel" fell, was not sacrificed in the Temple nor was it's blood sprinkled or offered up to God. Instead, the High Priest laid his hands on the head of this goat and confessed Israel's sin upon it and this goat, bearing the sins of the people on it's head, was led out into the wilderness and was left to die. And I want to point out again, this goat was not sacrificed and it's blood was not sprinkled in the Temple or on the congregation.

Only one of these goats was fulfilled by the sacrifice of Jesus, and that was the goat "For Jehovah," whose blood the High Priest carried into the Presence of God and sprinkled to atone for sin and which was sprinkled on all the furnishings and vessels of ministry and on all the congregation to cleanse them. This goat was a type and shadow of Jesus who was sacrificed and whose blood was carried into the Presence of God to make atonement for sin and by which all God's Holy House and the Congregation of God are cleansed.

So what did the other goat foreshadow? It was not a type of Jesus, as this goat was not sacrificed and it's blood was not offered to make atonement for sin. Instead this goat bore the sins of the people on it's head and departed into the wilderness where it was left to wander until it died.

Now let me pose a question. If God decided that the time had come to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Law in that generation of the coming of Jesus, wouldn't you expect that the Christian Jews, their sins having been atoned by the blood of Jesus (in fulfillment of the goat "For Jehovah") would inherit all the blessings of the Law and would escape the wrath of God, but those Jews who refused the atonement of sin provided in the blood of Jesus, in fulfillment of the goat "for Azazel" bore their sins upon their own heads and "departed" into the wilderness and perished like their faithless fathers before them?

So what these two goats were intended to teach us is that for atonement of sin under the Law to be complete, it required two goats. And for the judgment of the Law to be complete, it required both the blessings of the Law upon those innocent of the Law, and the curse of the Law against those who were guilty of the Law. And both of these types, the goat "for Jehovah" and the goat "for departing" were fulfilled in the days of the first coming of Jesus.

This explains why the feast that precedes this Day is a day of blowing an alarm, as a warning to the people. The Rabbis had some understanding of this which is why the 9 days from Trumpets to Atonement are even today called the "days of awe" and are to be spent in repentance and seeking forgiveness of sins. If they only knew that they will no longer be held accountable for obedience to the Law, they will be held accountable for obedience to the Gospel.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 
Last edited: