posted 08-26-2000 05:27 PM            

A few questions......

Is salvation found in the name "jesus"?
Acts 4:12?

Is "jesus" the name used by the apostles when the Messiah commissioned them to go and cast out demons in Mark 16:17? and used by others in Mark 9:38-39?
and in Luke 10:17?
Just asking

posted 08-26-2000 08:00 PM         

While on this topic I was wondering iff anyone has done any study on the following Scriptures;

Which also our fathers that came after brought in with JESUS into the possession of the Gentiles, whom Elohim drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; Acts 7:45

For if JESUS had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Hebrews 4:8

In the interlinear translations I have they say JESUS under the greek word Iesous yet when they translate it( in the colum next to it) again into the English writtings they correct it to JOSHUA whome the above Scriptures are obviously refering to.

has anyone ever come across this before?
why the confusion do you think here?
It`s either Jesus or Joshua can Iesous be both?

I look forward to any replies on this.

Shalom,
WAYne

posted 08-26-2000 08:02 PM            

No matter how you might try to get around the term ha-Adon as meaning "the lord" is not the same as baal for "lord". ha-Adon Yeshua does not , in fact, mean the same as " The Lord Jesus Christ " Adon is used more in the same vein as "sir" or "mister" and is used in respect. baal is used to refer to one having authority over another as in "baal sabaoth" ( an army captain ) baal sabaoth translates as "Lord of armies".

How many times should it need to be reiterated for the sake of the unlearned that a transliteration is not the same as a translation. In the first century C.E. the scriptures that were extant at the time were in the Greek language and what was known as a "targum" ( Hebrew for "translation ) Sorry about that for those who think "the old testament was in Hebrew, but it's just not true. Before anyone jumps on me saying that the Tenakh was originally with in the Hebrew, I'm talking first century C.E. here, not way back in the days of the patriarchs.
Those who must define things, please make your definitions clear, else we are not talking about the same things and no wonder there is confusion!

posted 08-26-2000 08:14 PM            

I only read about 1/2 way down the posting so forgive me if I missed anything.

It is correct that Iesous in Greek is a proper *Greek* transliteration of the Aramaic Yêshû‘a (or more likely Yêshû). It has no relation to Zeus (they are not even spelled the same in Greek - this is a danger for all of you out there who soley rely on SEC). (Note: there is a shift from _š_ to_s_ in Greek transliterations, not because there is no _h_ in Greek, but because Greek has no _š_ sound. Greek does not use the device of s+h to make the š sound, there is no relation to the fact Greek has no _h_ sound on this issue).

I do not know why people go around saying Zeus and Iesous are related, I guess the same reason they go around saying Messiah's *true* name is Yahshua - lack of studying and establishing things firmly in text. We do not need to scare anyone to get them to accet truth, truth is truth regardless. The Church has the same problem - entice them with the concept of "reward" or scare them with the concept of "punishment" -- the people need to be distilled with a heart of purity and truth, obediance to his word. That is a fundamentally lacking attitude and it often leads to such silly (and shameful) concepts that later form a hedge, and not a brdge, for people to come to truth. Truth stands by itself, his people do not need anything else.

Here are some problems with some of the notes in this thread: The LXX was not read in Yisra’êl (for the most part; the meager LXX scraps at Qûmran are an indication of this, not to mention the testimony of Josephus and the obserdity of using 2nd and 3rd century CE evidence as a mass cover for all of Yisra’êl when one forgets the tantamount shifts in Palestine due to the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kochba revolt and dispersion of all Jews from Palestine) so it is pretty unlikely he was called Iesous. Another point is that just because a word is written a certain way in Greek does not mean they were saying it that way! How many people have seen Rûach spelt as "Ruah" and heard someone (correctly) say "Ruach" when reading it? The intent of the LXX was for the Hellenists in the diaspora. We do not necessarily know for sure what the LXX originally had for a transliteration of Yâhûshu‘a ben-Nûn (Joshua). From the texts we do have that represent YHW- names, we would *expect* Iô- (so something like Iôsus or Iôsous) becausae all YHW- names in the LXX are as Iô-. The codices left to us are for the most part all Christian and dating from the 4th and 5th centuries CE. The fragments that have been uncovered from an earlier time post-Messiah have the nomina sacra of Messiah (IHS with a line over it) applied to "Joshua". OBVIOUSLY this was NOT original, but a redaction of the Christian Scribes (as they, correctly, believed Yâhûshu‘a ben-Nûn and Messiah had the same name). So we already know the very early 1st and 2nd century LXX copies held by the Christians were altered (i.e. the nomina sacra abbreviation). This is not a "bad" change as all it was indicating was that "Joshua" and Messiah had the same name, BUT it does cast a shadow on the later LXX form of Iesous. Iesous breaks the form of Iô- names in the LXX for Hebrew YHW- names, so Iesous most assuredly comes from Yêshû[‘a] and not Yâhûshu‘a. So historically we have X => IHS => Iesous. We can only postulate, but X (the original LXX form for "Joshua") was most likely Iôsous (or something similar) following the LXX trend for YHW- names, and Iesous a form related to the influence of the Arm. Yêshû‘a. The reason such a shift is possible is because there was a time when the nomina sacra was written into the LXX. There is an arguement for Iesous being original based off Neh 8:17, but again we are dealing not with the Herbew name of "Joshua" here but the influence of Aramaic. It is a leap, in any case, to determine "exactly" what the original LXX had because of the intermediary step of IHS and the fact Iesous breaks the Iô- trend. The point is that there was some outside influence from Aramaic and the prescence of nomina sacra and the breaking of the trend causes some difficulties. All that said, again, the LXX was not as popular in ’erets Yisra’êl as long has been held.

We know that Yêshû was a slur and not his name. We know that he was not called Iesous at birth as Matt 1:18-25 indicate his name has meaning to his people. Iesous has no meaning, and the people of Yisra’êl (to those he was sent alone, we do not find Messiah traveling the streets of Rome) were mainly Semitic speakers. Yêshû‘a is Aramaic, and as I covered in another post, was not his name either. The Sages and the early Church fathers (and textual evidence from both the NT and the LXX) indicate that his name was YHWSh‘, which was properly pronounced as Yâhûshu‘a.

Anyhow, what is often missed is that Jesus is not a proper transliteration of Yêshû‘a, Yeshua (or Yêshû‘a) is correct. Jesus is a transliteration of the Latin Iesus (which is in turn one from the Greek Iesous; which was in turn a transliteration of the Arm. Yêshû‘a; which was inturn a short form of the Hbebrew Yâhûshu‘a that developed because of the fear of using the name or its elements after the exile). Jesus is not a proper transliteration of Yâhûshu‘a, again Yahushua (or Yâhûshu‘a) are proper.

The question that is being avoided is that if you can say his name how it was given to him from YHWH through an angel - why not use that? If YHWH called him "X" why do we persist in altering that form (even just a little bit)? It is disprespectful. In the ancient world only those of higher status could change or alter ones name. This is a reoccuring theme in scripture. Who renamed 'Abram? Ya`aqov? Who named the animals? The first alteration of Messiah's name (YHWSh` => YShW) was to indicate "May his name and memory be blotted out". Disregarding the massive amount of Hebrew evidence for the tantamount importance of names, the Matthean Gospel account makes Messiah's name important and significant to all believers. His name would identify him and his purpose - who he was and what he was doing.

For those interested, there is a thread where I posted some reasons why Messiah's earthly name was Yâhûshu‘a (YHWSh‘) and why it is pronounced that way.
http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/002094-3.html

The true difficulty in this subject is that there is so much garbage out there. No offense to those who are in the "Yahshua" camp, but there is no linguistic support for your form. YH- just never appears at the beginning of names. The reason it appears at the end of names is becuase of the influence of other Semitic languages and the drop of final vowel letters (i.e. the Wâw was understood). This is why archaeologically we find YW at the beginning and end of names. Pre-exilically Yhwhistic theophoric names are always transliterated as "Yahu". The form "Yahshua" pretty much sprang forth from zealous (but misguided) early believers who recognized "YHWSh`" as Messiah's name, but added "Yah-" for the first sound. even to this day, most people are ignorant of the fact YHW is the dominant form in the Hebrew scriptures. It is much more common to find someone who knows of "Yah" than "Yahu" though textually and archeologically Yahu is by far the more prominent form.

The forms like YHWHshua, Y'shua, Y'shu`ah, etc... have no textual merit at all and are a joke. Never do we find a name with the full tetragrammaton attatched to a name. Though YHW is a refernce to YHWH (obviously 'Eliyahu meansd YHWH is 'elohim; and Yesha`yahu means YHWH is salvation - both picking up major these in the books), YHW most likely being a jussive form (and most likely refers to the element in Isa 12:2; 26:4) and is the proper form in names. Far to many people miss the point of the idea Messiah came in his fathers name - it means he used it. The prophets came in (or bore) the name also - and yet not all of them had YHW (and not YHWH) in their names. Y'shua is a miss vowel pointing. It problably is a form of Y'shu`ah (the final Hê’ usually not written by most scholars, and the `Ayin is almost always ignored, just like ’Alef). The problem is that Y'shu`ah is a feminie form! Not to mention no textual suppport yet again.

The three forms that can be textually supported are YHWSh‘, YShW, and YShW‘. YShW was most assuredly not his name. YShW‘ is Aramaic and is born out of an idea of avoidance (we know originally, from the Nippur documents, that in Aramaic names were written with a proper transliteration of the theophoric element, it was not glossed). YHWSh‘ is Hebrew, avoids no traditions, and would have a clear meaning to the people (i.e. the Hebrew people - one must remember there were those who were still known as "Hebrews"; even so much so Paul calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" which means he was NOT a Hellenist... where there is one there are others). Again, the church fathers, the Jewish sages, Christian LXX copies with the Messiah nomina sacra, NT connections between Messiah and "Joshua", etc... see a clear connection of the name YHWSh‘ with Messiah. It is not too hard to see how with 1) the slurred redaction of YShW among Jews and 2) the tendancy to use Yêshû‘a in Aramaic for YHWSh‘; to see how YHWSh‘ easily became *later* associated with "Yeshua" and "Iesous". That does not mean that was his name or that he was called that. The prominence of these forms is not evidence that YHWSh‘ was not the name GIVEN to him, but fits the culteral and theological motifs of that era and what soon followed.

Anyhow, check out the link above.

Shâlôm b'YHWH - Joshua

posted 08-27-2000 08:39 AM            

As we all know, it has become more and more common for Jesus-believing Jews in a diaspora context to use a Hebraicized form such as Y'shua or Yeshua in one's diaspora language. There are many good -- and understandable -- reasons for that. And if Jesus-believing Jews are attacked for this, I am going to defend them. But I would like to add two things. I fear that an exaggerated use of this and similar terms towards Gentile believers and the Church may be counter-productive, or perhaps seen as a linguistic abnormity. I call in question whether Jewish believers using Hebraicized terms when addressing Gentile believers succeed in communicating what they intend to communicate. My second addition is that the use of the form of Yeshua is no guarantee that what is said about him is biblically sound and that it is understood correctly.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/topics/other/names_kkh.htm

The name Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshua. The meaning comes from the Hebrew root, yasha, meaning "to save." That is why He was named Yeshua, because He will "save" His people from their sins (Mt. 1:21). Thus, Yeshua means "salvation."
The English name, Jesus, is just a transmigration through several languages. Hebrew has an "sh" sound, Greek has a hard "s"; the Hebrew "y" changes to a Greek "i"; then through Latin to the English "j." Vowel patterns change; this is simply the nature of languages. His name shifts from the Hebrew Yeshua, to the Greek Iesous, to Latin Iesus, to English Jesus. So, Jesus is not a substitute name for Yeshua, it is the English equivalent.
The English name Joshua can be a translation of two different Hebrew names. The Joshua of the Book of Joshua has the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means "Jehovah is salvation." But the Joshua who is the High Priest of the Books of Ezra and Zechariah has the name Yeshua, the same name as Jesus.
However, Yeshu is a rabbinic name for Him which is a deliberate slur. They drop the last letter (the "ah" sound) of His four-letter Hebrew name to avoid the implication of Him representing "salvation." Then they use the first three letters as an acronym: Yimach SHmo V'zichrono, meaning, "may his name and memory be blotted out." Yeshu is a rabbinic "word play"; it is not His actual name.

http://www.ariel.org/qayeshua.html

In a study by Rachel Hachlili ("Names and Nicknames of Jews in Second Temple Time", Eretz-Israel, Vol. 17 pp. 188-211) in which she surveyed the literary and epigraphical sources of Jesus' day, she found that nearly one out of every ten persons known from the period was named Yeshua.

The first sound of the second syllable of Yeshua is the 'sh' sound represented by the Hebrew letter shin. This third sound also is mispronounced - as 'z' instead of 'sh'. This happened because Greek, like many other languages, has no 'sh' sound. Yeshua was transcribed to Greek as Iesus, the Greek sigma being the closest approximation of the Hebrew shin.

Translators of English versions of the New Testament transliterated the Greek transcription of a Hebrew name, instead of returning to the original Hebrew. This was doubly unfortunate, firstly because the 'sh' sound exists in English, and secondly because in English the 's' sound can shift to the 'z' sound, which is what happened in the case of the pronunciation of 'Jesus'.

http://www.cfi.org.uk/yeshua.htm

In one popular booklet published by a well-known Sacred Name organization, the anonymous author makes this statement: “Most reference works agree with Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the NT statement on page 284, which states that the name Yahoshua was shortened after the exile to the short form Yahshua.” This statement makes it sound like Kittel uses the forms Yahoshua and Yahshua. I went to the library and looked at this page in Kittel’s. The words Yahoshua and Yahshua do not appear even one time on this page. This can be verified by going to a library and looking up this page. (It’s in Volume III.) If your library does not have Kittel’s, I can send a photocopy of this page to any skeptics

Someone who reads the Bible in Hebrew, though, knows that the name Joshua sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua ([wvy) in Neh. 8:17 it is apparent even in English: “Jeshua the son of Nun.” (The letter J was pronounced like a Y in Old English.) Strong does not tell the reader that the Greek Yesous is actually transliterated from this shortened Hebrew form, Yeshua, and not directly from the longer form Yehoshua.

http://www.tnnonline.net/theonews/natureofgod/hebname-messiah/english-name.html

But it's not only the meaning of the name that is important. Yeshua is the hidden name of the Messiah that appears in many crucial Messianic prophecies. For example: Exo. 14:13 says, "Stand strong and see the yeshuah of the LORD" (shortly before the Angel of God appears, a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus in vs. 19); the Messianic prophey of Isa. 52:7 says, "How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news...who announces yeshuah." The Messianic theme continues in Isa. 52:10, which says, "The LORD has bared his holy arm in the sight of all the Gentiles, that all the ends of the earth may see the yeshuah of our God." The Messianic prophecy of Isa. 49:6 says, "And I have made you a light to the nations, to be my yeshuah to the end of the earth." Isaiah 12 is another exciting section: "God is my yeshuah, I will trust and not be afraid, for the YAH [short for YAVH] of YAVH is my strength and song, and he has become my yeshuah." This is an amazing prophecy that teaches the multi-personality of God that today we call the Tri-unity of God. And this is only the beginning of it. If we misunderstand the name of Jesus, we miss the full meaning of these incredible prophecies.

http://www.totheends.com/questions2.htm#Yeshua

posted 08-27-2000 12:13 PM            

I have found that it is not about the "phonetic sound" of the name, but the MEANING. The "meaning" of the name is what is so important.

For acts 4:7 shows us that "name" means "power".

"...by what POWER, or by what NAME, have ye done this?"

What the name "Yahoshua" does is bring you one step closer to that "power". For if one continues in the "Jesus" doctrine, but just says "Yahoshua" they are no better off.
But once they find out what "Yahoshua" MEANS; Yah is Salvation, THEN...
they may know by what "Power" that man was made "WHOLE". Praise Yah!

For it is not by our "own"hand that we are made free from sin, but by Yah's own hand we are made free. It is YAH that brings us up out of the land of Egypt.
Egypt was known for "their OWN works"
Their "own" power, thier "own" might. Their "own" knowledge. But "ISRAEL" is known by WHOM they SERVE.

I am not talking about a "blood line"...
I am talking about by "what power" we think we are able to do that which we do.

For if we think it is by "our" own hand that we come out of sin, then we are still in "Egypt". But once we have tasted of Yah's spirit, and HIS power that has set us free from that which we were not able to free ourselves from... Then we no longer look to our "own" hand, but pray unto the Father in the Name or in the POWER of Yahosha which MEANS; YAH'S SALVATION!

So when we pray "In the Name", We are saying "by the POWER of THY Salvation" I do ask. And Understanding that Yahosha is the WORD. Then we are Also praying "According to thy Word".. so be it.

Praise Yah!

Is. 57:10
"Thou art wearied in the greatness of thy way; yet saidst thou not, there is no hope: thou hast found the life of THINE OWN HAND: therefore thou wast not grieved.

Yah is speaking of those that lean unto their "own" hand, or their "own" power to gain righteousness.

12) "I will declare THY righteousness, and THY works; for they shall NOT profit thee.
13) When thou criest, let thy companies deliver thee; but the wind shall carry them all away; vanity shall take them; but HE THAT PUTTETH HIS TRUST IN ME shall POSSESS the land, and inherit my holy mountain.

(the "land" that we shall "possess", is our "own self", For we are made of the earth/land. and if we Trust Yah to "work a work" in us, then we shall be brought out of things that we ourselves could not.

"mountain" in scripture represents power too. a "high place", when Yah speaks of "mountains melting before him".. he speaks of the powers of darkness, the lies, that have overtaken us shall "melt" before him.) Praise Yah!

He is so Wonderful, for Truly He IS our DELIVERER!

19) "I create the fruit of the lips; peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith Yah, and > I < will HEAL THEM.

It is not about a phonetic "sound", but about what/ whos "Power" are we crediting our obtaining of "Life".

Unfortunately, the name "Jesus" makes it harder to know just what this "means".
For when one looks up "Jesus" my dictionary says; One who established the christian religion"
But when I look up Yahshua/Yahoshua/Yahosha/Yeshua etc.
it says; Yah's salvation, Yah the saviour/ Salvation of Yah etc. big difference.
At least it was to me. It was the beginning of my whole understanding. And I can attest, and testify, that once Yah opened my eyes to look unto HIS power, HIS own hand, and not my own, it was THEN over a period of years, Trusting him, that I today have a lying tongue kept far from me, and a theiving hand kept far from me, and a coveteous heart kept far from me, and a perverted nature kept far from me.

And I just cry when I remember this, for truly His mercy is so great. And my sins, Oh my, they overwhelmed me. Truly I was drowning and had no understanding in me at all, and I KNEW IT. I was so very lost.

But praise be to YAH, my "maker", He had mercy unto me, and did, and continues to "mold" me and ALL who look to HIS hand, and not their own, unto HIMSELF. Thus our "land" (body) become married, and He and We become one Flesh.

"O' Yah, forsake not the Work of thine own hands".

May we all attend the feast of tabernacles, and come unto the understanding that HE dwells WITHIN. For truly we are all in great torment until we do.

Love,
D'

posted 08-27-2000 04:17 PM         

Michael, sorry we seemed to ignore your questions. This is my first opportunity to be on-line since Friday. I'll attempt to answer your questions...

Is salvation found in the name "jesus"?
Acts 4:12?

Acts 4:12--"Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."

What is the purpose of a name?

quote:

---

1. A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others: "some of the most famous names of the 20th century."--American Heritage Dictionary

---

The name reflects upon the person. The name ISN'T the person, but a description, a necessary concept by which to designate an individual.

My point is, and always has been, that His name is not in and of itself endowed with any kind of power. It is in calling upon Him in one's heart that the power is conferred/brought to bear.

Psalms 44:21--"Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart."

If you are following/worshipping Him in your heart, He will know and I have to believe that He will accept and be honored by your service... whatever name you use. Even the Romans knew of Him, and they called Him the "unknown God". Did He not recognize that this was meant for Him? Paul obviously figured it out...

The question comes: are those who put their faith in a word(His 'name') any closer to G-d than those who place their faith in His person/existence/mediation? Is His name greater or more significant than His person? Should we not look to Him, provided we use as legitimate a name as we can(Jesus being, as has so far been proven, at least reasonably valid)? None of us would use an outright pagan name... that's just common sense...

Is "jesus" the name used by the apostles when the Messiah commissioned them to go and cast out demons in Mark 16:17? and used by others in Mark 9:38-39? and in Luke 10:17?

Do you want the short answer or the long? The short answer is "yes", that's what it says in my Bible. The long answer is no, but it's the best English translation that was available at the time my Bible was printed, and it's an accepted name, both by G-d and men. Unless, no-one using the name 'Jesus' has ever been granted salvation... and that could never be proven... In fact, there's sufficient proof to the contrary to make it a waste of effort.

BibleBird, welcome! I see it's your first post here. May you enjoy a long and profitable relationship with us here!

Does our creator not care what name we use for Him?

Yes, this is quite a convoluted question, it seems.

As to a prior question you related, no, we should not use a name we know to relate to other, 'pagan,' gods. That's where we all can agree.

The stickler is: since the name 'Jesus' has been quite sufficiently proven to be valid and acceptable in substitution for 'Hebraic' names of G-d, would it offend Him to use it? I honestly can't believe it would. Granted, most churches today would give the impression that they are going the wrong direction(and they are), but their use of the name 'Jesus' cannot be proved to be the root cause. The founding fathers of the country(USA) were Christians... most rejected Catholicized "Christianity" and almost all were devout and G-d-fearing men. From the list of quotes I've obtained, the name 'Jesus' was quite prominent.

I know of churches who regularly use the name 'Jesus' in deliverance ministries, casting out demons(yes, it continues today... not very many places do it, but a few still do). G-d, Satan, the angels and demons recognize the name 'Jesus'... and so should we.

The question comes: if the letter brings death, and the spirit brings life(2 Cor. 3:6), would rejecting a name based on it's nationality(or language) make it invalid? Sure, the name of our Savior was originally in Greek(or was it Aramaic?), but English speakers need a compatible name(or the closest they can come). Is salvation in a conglomeration of letters, or in the person they represent? Are we following the Spirit or the letter of the law?

Does anyone have the right to demand all believers to use their own assumed "correct Hebraic" name? Does the specific 'name' matter as much as some make it out to?

My opinion, I guess everyone personally must either take it or leave it, is that if you follow the G-d of the Word as best one can, has the faith of Messiah and keeps His Word in the way they are lead to do so by His Spirit, does a 'name' really matter? Could He not go by any number of names? He is so large that the world cannot contain Him, how much so can a name contain His entire personality/character/quality? Not one name can truly do Him justice, no matter which word you choose...

Messiah bless your house,
Elect

[This message has been edited by Elect (edited 08-27-2000).]

posted 08-27-2000 05:44 PM            

My, I did not think that I was going to kick up so much dust. But then too, I too was once a defender of the faith.

I am sure that you all have heard the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Well when one says that Torah has been made void and Israel made desolate. When G-d's Holy Feast Days are replaced with pagan feast days. And G-d's Holy Sabbath is replaced with the pagan holy day of Sunday. When the Messiah of Israel is totally vailed, totall schrouded in paganism. And then the final reply comes, "It is the intent that counts."

Well my Friends, "Behold the Pavement."

posted 08-27-2000 07:41 PM            

         Go back and check, you will find the topic of this thread is "the name of jesus." Not, "Torah has been made void and Israel made desolate" Not, "G-d's Holy Feast Days are replaced with pagan feast days." Not, "G-d's Holy Sabbath is replaced with the pagan holy day of Sunday." Not, "When the Messiah of Israel is totally vailed, totall schrouded in paganism."
         If you want to discuss these topics then post some discussion about them.
         Now what you have done is lump everyone together who disagrees with the warmed over tripe you posted from your latest guru, re: the letter "J" and the ridiculous "Zeus" connection, and gone off on this wild eyed tangent about "Feast days" and "Sabbath", etc. All of which have absolutely nothing to do with how the Hebrew name "Y'shua" came to be transliterated in English Bibles as "Jesus." You cannot find the truth in some book you bought, for $5, off the Internet. Books like "To Babble On", Al Hislop, "Get Outta Here My Sheep-le", J.C. Koster and "Fuzzy Lies Conundrums", Lew White are full of unsupported, undocumented, unverified lies!
         Here is an archaeological site which presents evidence of the name Yeshua, in Hebrew, and Iesous, in Greek, in the same tomb, in Jerusalem, dated 41 AD. The second site shows a photo of an ossuary in the same tomb with an inscription, in Hebrew, "[To] Jesus, the Lord." I wonder how the name Iesous, which supposedly honors the Greek pagan deity Zeus, found its way into the same tomb, in the very same Jewish, not Greek or Roman, city where the Messiah was crucified, only 8 years after His death.
         Do you suppose those evil "Zeus" worshippers somehow snuck into the tombs, years later, and planted the name Iesous, resealed the tombs, leaving no evidence of tampering, and were so clever that all the scientists have been fooled? Your sources are amazingly brilliant to figure all of this out with absolutely no evidence!

http://www.securesite.net/ss2ad/past/main96.html
http://www.securesite.net/ss2ad/past/main910.html

Zaqunra'ahyahuw
Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia

[This message has been edited by OldShepherd (edited 08-27-2000).]

IP: Logged

posted 08-27-2000 08:58 PM            

quote:

---

Do you suppose those evil "Zeus" worshippers somehow snuck into the tombs, years later, and planted the name Iesous, resealed the tombs, leaving no evidence of tampering, and were so clever that all the scientists have been fooled? Your sources are amazingly brilliant to figure all of this out with absolutely no evidence!

---

posted 08-27-2000 09:31 PM            

My Friend, good day to you.

True, the title of this thread is "the name of jesus."

However my Friend, should you read my origional post. Then you shall see that Torah made void and Israel made desolate. And G-d's Holy Feast Days being replaced by pagan feast days, and etc, etc. That all of this is a part of my origional post.

And it is therein that the name of jesus enters in. For the Church says that it is in and through the name of this one that all of the precipts of the G-d of Israel have been set aside.

>>Now what you have done is lump everyone together who disagrees with the warmed over tripe you posted from your latest guru,

<>Interesting---I never gave a thought that the G-d of Israel may be a guru. What do you suppose?

>> You cannot find the truth in some book you bought, for $5, off the Internet. Books like "To Babble On"

<> Strange, I did not realize that the understanding or putting forth the truth had a price tag on it. Does that mean that if I go to a multi-million or billion dollar religious organsation that I will truly receive the truth?

>>Here is an archaeological site which presents evidence of the name Yeshua, in
Hebrew, and Iesous, in Greek, in the same tomb, in Jerusalem, dated 41 AD. The second site shows a photo of an ossuary in the same tomb with an inscription, in Hebrew, "[To]
Jesus, the Lord."

<>I visited the site, and it is most interesting. However did you notice that the inscription is "scratched in." So therefore my Friend, the actual date of the "scratching" by no means indicated that it was scratched in the coffin in 41 CE. And again, the letter "J" was not introduced into the English language until 1665.

>> Do you suppose those evil "Zeus" worshippers somehow snuck into the tombs,
years later, and planted the name Iesous, resealed the tombs, leaving no evidence of
tampering, and were so clever that all the scientists have been fooled? Your sources are
amazingly brilliant to figure all of this out with absolutely no evidence!

<>That is a very good point my Friend. However can these scientists truly say without a shadow of a doubt that an entrance as such did not happen? This coffin was found in a catacomb---right?
Catacombs as such were open for years, and some time centuries. Just look at the catacombs that were found under the city of Rome several years. No one had the slightest Idea that they were there.