Maybe you have heard there argument, it goes like this...The Greeks were not yashuans, Jesus was Jewish so were all the prophets, therefore we must speak their names in Hebrew.… (yes the Old Testament names are all Hebrew, but not in the New Testament). Since Jesus was Jewish you are not allowed to say His name in another language. Says who? Who made up this rule of language anyway? (they did).
There is no "J" in the Greek, Latin, or Hebrew language so his name cannot be Jesus. To sum up the Yaweh/Yashua only arguments - there was no J in the English language until 500 years ago. There is no J or sound of J in either the Hebrew or Greek language, and never was. This is true, I say so what! Were not speaking Hebrew.
They seem to ignore that neither were there vowels to pronounce the Hebrew until about 1,000 years ago. So how can one know the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton? Hebrew scholars admit that the Hebrew language was all but lost to general use until modern times, which saw a resurgence as part of the rebuilding the Hebrew nation of Israel.
According to sacred name groups unless one uses the Hebrew name and only the Hebrew name for God that person will be eternally damned. It should be noted that not all of the Sacred Name teachers are so dogmatic, but most are.
This exclusive view is held by many Sacred Name groups, however they do not know the original pronunciation of the Name, they are in much disarray as well. This is admitted not by their own words but by the variety of different names that are used within their movement. God can be called Yah, Yahweh, Yahvah, Yahveh, Iahueh, and Yaohu.
Jesus is agreed upon to be called Yahshua by most SN folks. But some call him Yasha, by others Yeshua, Yahushua, Yaohushua, Iahushua, YAHVAHSHUA, and Yhwhhoshua. Why such Confusion! Remember they teach you must be exact in your pronunciation.
So which sacred name group is not going to hell for the correct pronunciation? There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name.
All of them promote their particular name as the only one God approves of. So looking at this carefully one can say they are no better off than Christians who use the name of Jesus as the Messiahs name.
Which name is it?
Choose one, but you better be absolutely right. Is it -Yeshua, Yesha, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, YESHUAH, YEHSHUAH, YAHUSUHWA, YAHOOSHUA ,YHWHSOSANA, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Yeshu, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahshua, Yehoshua, Yehooshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua, or Iahushuah YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua, Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Yahushuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah? Or any other name one might add to the list since this is not current. I ASK you. Y do they all discover different names for the same Elohim of Scripture? And who is right?
The main reason they are wrong is because no one knows how to correctly pronounce his name, this is why sacred name groups come to different conclusions and cannot agree among themselves. So if Jesus name is wrong so is theirs! Remember you have to be exact. Yahweh is from the Hebrew old Testament, the New Testament is in the Greek.
Yashua is spelt in English. In the Hebrew there is no English letter Y, it is a yod that is a sound of a Y. If your going to make an issue of pronouncing it right then it needs to be written in Hebrew as well. It should not only be the correct pronunciation but written the way it was given.
That is logical end of the correct name. Sacred name adherents must REJECT their English spelling of the SACRED NAME in their own Bibles, since YHWH is NOT in the Hebrew but written in English. The sacred name groups use the prophet's, OT characters and apostles names in Hebrew as well, but they are written in English. Why do they concentrate on only the names pronounced in the Hebrew but not the words they wrote?
Where is the word Yashua in the Greek text or in the English. They claim it was removed! Move over Jehovah’s Witnesses you have competition. They do the same that the Jehovah's Witnesses did with their text, which they translated from NO Greek manuscripts. What manuscripts do the Sacred name translators use? They insert what they want. Fact- there are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Greek in the New Testament.
The Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament dates back to the end of the first year A.D. The Hebrew language is usually written only in consonant’s which consists of 22 letters in the Hebrew Alphabet. The Hebrew Bible was originally a written in consonant’s in the Hebrew text. During the early part of the tenth century (895-1000 A.D.) there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jewish scribes as all scribes were meticulous in their copying of the text. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs.
The Masoretic text has a system of dots and dashes called “pointing” (these are vowel pronunciations) which had been added to the consonants in order to aid in the words pronunciation. The Masoretic text is the standard text used today for all Bible translations.
Without these aids we would have no idea how to pronounce certain words. For example when we take away the vowels in our English language we may not know how to pronounce a word for example Love- lv, weather-wthr, redemption would look like rdmptn, or Rsrrctn (resurrection).
It would be hard to figure out what the word exactly is or how to accurately pronounce it. It is similar in the Hebrew. Even with the aids there is no absolute assurance of certain words spoken correctly the way the originally were, case in point God's name represented without the vowels YHWH.
N L these two Hebrew letters we have a sin and a shin. It is the same letter, but it is the vowel which is a dot placed on the upper left or right of the letter that determines how it will sound. If we were to play sound assimilation like the sacred name groups, every time we used the sin it would be translated from the English pronunciation to this letter in Hebrew.
The problem is that it doesn’t mean what sin means (going against God). This is an alef Ç this it is to be silent except for the vowel underneath which gives it a sound of aw. The vowels were not written in the original Hebrew so it is an educated guess based on Hebrew knowledge.
When it comes to the name, again there are so many variations that if one would make it a matter of salvation for its correct sound they would in all reasonableness condemn “their sacred name brothers” who pronounce it differently. I know they do not want to do that, but it is inevitable.
The sacred name groups use chapter and verses, these were also found in the Masoretic Text later on. This idea came in 1550 from Robert Stephens a printer in Paris. In His Greek Testament he divided the scriptures into chapter and verses and published the first version in the Vulgate in 1555.
The first English Bible having these divisions was the Geneva Bible published in 1580 with a completed work of chapter and verses. But these are additions so if one is true and consistent in their argument of the accurate name being removed and replaced, certainly they should feel as uncomfortable with adding to the text chapters and verses.
The name of Yashua in GreekIn Greek Iyo'ous is read Easous (Jesus) IESOU is pronounced IYESOUS (sometimes dropping the end S -e-ye-su) in the Greek. Not Iazeus as some sacred name groups claim.
What they are doing is trying to make a connection to Zeus a pagan god and make Christians guilty by their own word assimilation. This is called Phonetics, which is not concerned with meaning, but sound. Speech sounds are almost always independent of the meanings that those sounds are used to convey.
All languages have words that combine in syntactic patterns to convey meanings through the use of speech sound.
The use of Iesous (Jesus) for Joshua was common long before the birth of our Savior. It is found in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scripture. The form was identical in the OT Greek Septuagint to that of the New Testament text. The book of Yahoshua (Joshua) in the Greek Septuagint is named Iseous naus- meaning Joshua Son of Nun.
So it was the Hebrews themselves that used this name in Greek language before Jesus' time. Certainly they were not calling him Zeus, an enemy of Israel, anymore than they called Joshua Zeus. Iseous is not a pagan name since the name was used to mean salvation. His name Hoshea - salvation was changed to Yehoshua (Yahweh is salvation).
The Bible then makes it clear in Greek it is Iseous of Nazareth who is the name one must be saved by. He is the same Iseous christos (Jesus the anointed) that is spoken of in Scripture no matter what language the name is pronounced.
In the first century the Jews spoke the Hebrew language. However Hebrew was not the only language that the Jews spoke. If you lived back then you would have called Jesus the Messiah- Iesous christos if you were Greek, and Yeshua ha Mashiach if a Hebrew.
Would Jesus answer to either of these names or only one? The proof is found in the Scripture, which shows he would answer to both. You would call Him by the name which had the meaning in your language. Did the Romans actually pronounce his Hebrew name or speak their own language when they spoke to Jesus? This we will see is crucial to refuting the arguments sacred name groups present. These are two different languages for the same individual.
Some have said the name Christ is Krishna therefore it could never be the correct word. MESSIAH in Hebrew is Mashiach, in Aramaic meshicha', in Greek- Christos, Christou. The Jews also spoke Aramaic and would call him meshica in that language.
Just as the term Messiah, mashiach is a Hebrew term, (mashach OT:4886, "to smear with oil or paint, anoint.") This verb, which appears 69 times in biblical Hebrew, has equivalents in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic.
Mashiach means anointed. In the Old Testament “A king of Israel was described upon occasion as christos tou Kuriou, "the anointed of the Lord," 1 Sam. 2:10,35; 2 Sam 1:14; Ps 2:2; 18:50; Hab. 3:13” (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) mishchah OT:4888, "anointment." This noun occurs 21 times and only in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It always follows the Hebrew word for oil. The first occurrence is Ex. 25:6: (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).
The Greek word “Christos” is derived from the word “Chrio” which means to smear, or anoint. chrioo was used often in the Septuagint as an adjective like "the anointed priest" (I Kings 2:10) and then as a substantive to translate the Hebrew word "Messiah" Messias. (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)
When the Hebrew word “Mashiach” (messias) was translated into the Greek language, it was called Christos and translated in English “Christ.” Jesus Christ in the Greek is pronounced Ieesou Christou (Matt 1:1). There is absolutely no connection to Krishna in Christos and they should find a better lie to spread than this. Ask anyone who speaks Hindi they will tell you the truth on this word, it does not mean Krishna.
In John 1:41 (Andrew) first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (the Bible then makes the point “which is translated, the Christ” [this is found in the Greek text- methermeneuo (meth-er-mane-yoo'-o); to explain over, i.e. translate: (by) interpret (-ation). Christos (pronounced- khris-tos']) anointed, i.e. the Messiah.)
John 4:25-26 The woman at the well (a Samaritan) said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ).” The Scriptures make the point of calling him Both in the Hebrew and the Greek Mt.16:16 Peter said thou art the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the living God. It was the apostles who translated this over and wrote us the Scripture in Greek though they may have spoke this in Aramaic.
So it comes down to answering the question why people do not speak “the name” the same way in all languages?” The answer is very simple. It becomes more important to keep the MEANING of the word, when changing from one language to another, than SPEAKING or pronouncing it the same in all languages.
All languages have words that combine in syntactic patterns to convey meanings through the use of speech sound. The meaning of a word is expressed through the sound. We use words to communicate meanings, not meanings to communicate words.
To give a “NAME” means to describe one's identity their character or nature. That is what it meant to the Hebrews. It’s meaningless to pronounce a word that one cannot understand. It is more sensible and biblical to call Him by the word that has an equivalent meaning in your language.
An example would be that some words spoken in one language can have a benign in meaning, or can be offensive in another. The intent of languages and especially translating them is to convey meanings of the words and not how they sound.
What this movement is doing is demanding Christianity to adopt a name unfamiliar to their spoken language, and culture. They are denying emphatically that the savior could be known to all by His claims, His person, and His word.
But can only be known by a special knowledge -their INSPIRED pronunciation of the name. (Depending whatever group you are in). They are insisting that the person of Jesus we know is false and a myth because of the name not being pronounced in their correct Hebrew language. Imagine you’re in a place on far away from civilization or on a deserted Island. All you have is a Bible in your language. But you don’t have a sacred name Bible.
You can’t know Jesus or understand what he is saying because you don’t have the correct pronunciation for him, so he cannot answer your call to be saved. So too bad your out of His divine providence to be saved, you can’t say the correct name at the time until you know it. The problem is NO matter which name you say you, will be found guilty by some other sacred name group for not using their interpretation of the name. So who is the ultimate representative and judge for them?
It is more crucial to know who Jesus is, for if one denies His deity it matters little how near correct they are on the pronunciation of His name
The Controversy solvedThe name Jesus ends with an “SUS” (pronounced soos in Greek), is accused by some sacred name adherents to mean horse in Hebrew. But Greek and Hebrew are two different languages. Some go as far in a mocking way and claim soos is equivalent to “Zeus” because of the similar sound, therefore “JeSUS” is a pagan name.
But Zeus is not in the Hebrew and there is no transition from Ie-sous- Iesoun, to Zeus even in the Greek language. As a matter of fact the word Zeus is not even found in the Greek New Testament.
In Greek it is Dia =Zeus (pronounced Dia) if Zeus was pronounced like it is written it would look like this Zeu neither of these words looks anything like Iseous Ihso$
In the Strong's Concordance it is pronounced dios or dzyooce ( for Zeus); named Dis (deece), which is otherwise obsolete; Zeus or Dis (among the Latin’s, it is Jupiter or Jove), was the supreme deity of the Greeks:
#1356 diopetes (dee-op-et'-ace); from the alternate of 2203 pronounced dzyooce. In Acts 14 Hermes is pronounced hermace also known as mercury. Hermas which comes from Hermes is amn who worked in the gospel found in Rom.16:14 was hermas a pagan because of his name? There is NO ZEUS in the Greek New Testament Bible. And none of these names are relative to Isoun (Jesus) or Yesous in Greek, they are completely different words with different meanings. But if one has been confused on this issue its not surprising they would spread it to others.To say JESUS is not calling Zeus. This shows not only immaturity on their part, but repeating something that is so easily proven wrong that it almost endorses them having a cult mind set. (They wear it as a badge of honor). But this shows they know barely a thing about the languages.
If you speak his name in Spanish you would say HAYSOOS. Because the end sound is the same that does not mean you are calling on pagan God.
The people in Mexico call the Lord Hay-soos in THEIR language and God knows whom they are calling on. To say God will not answer them is to make God to be like a man who does not understand the heart or language which has finite abilities.
When we use a word in the English language that sounds the same it does not mean the same. It depends on how it is spelled and its meaning in the sentence structure. For Example we use the word do and dew, they sound the same but they certainly do not mean the same things.
The word time and tyme are two completely different objects. As well as to and two. So if someone came along and said the word “to” which is a preposition meaning toward, near etc. If someone used “to” (which means an action) in a sentence to mean more than one as in the number (two) we would think that person does not have an grasp on the English language.
If they insist that they dew (do), we would have to admit that they have been badly educated or deceived by someone’s teaching. (There are many other simple examples such as toe, tow or type -meaning a class of and type using a typewrite. etc.) Many of the same words can have more than one meaning and these are examples from within the English language, not one language to another.
It’s amazing that a gentile group hasn't come along to insist EE-AY-ZOOS from the Greek, is the true pronunciation, just as the Hebrew groups have. Hopefully I’m not giving inspiration to a new movement.
Another claim is the word Lord is Baal, is used of false God’s only.
In Unger's Dictionary Baal (Heb. ba`al, "master"), is applied only to heathen deities, or to the man as husband, or to one specially skilled in a trade or profession.” (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary). Look it up in the Hebrew and you will see this is true. So because of this no one is allowed to use the word Lord since there is a word for lord that the pagans used. Something this ridiculous should not need addressing. Would a wife who called her husband Baal mean he is a false God, where is the logic in this position?
The Scriptures have God himself using the word Baal For himself. Certainly to take the position of the Sacred name Movement means one must change what God himself said in his inspired Hebrew writings..
Jer. 31:32: " Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband (Baal) unto them, saith the LORD"
Isa. 54:5: "For thy Maker is thine husband; (Baal) the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called."
Here is God, who was a husband to Israel using the name Baal, proving, that even Yahweh had no problem applying this name which means master or husband to himself.
Some have claimed “YHVH” in Hebrew sounds like “PIPI” when translated in Greek letters. This is just a big fat lie by those who have no background in languages and are repeating a rumor. The P in Greek capitol -Π small- π has the sound of an “R” Which is called RHO”. With regards to YHVH, the Greek language does not have a Vee” sound, but does have a Vee' shaped letter.
In Uncial form or capitol letter, “N” is pronounced “NU and looks like a ν in Greek. The Y” in Uncial becomes a “U” in small form like a” υ” which is called an Upsilon. The “H” in Uncial becomes “η” in small form, pronounced “AETA”. (Chart of letters sacna4.htm) You need Hebrew and Greek Script to see letters correctly.
While it true there is no SH sound in Greek, the result was not “Iesu” but pronounced in the Greek “Yesou.” How the sacred namers render the “s” in Iesu is incorrect, because that form of “s” σ is used only in a final sigma. It is never used at the beginning or middle of a word. A capitol “s” would look like this Σ.
If it was translated the way it sounds it would not have the same meaning, it may have no meaning, but it is suppose to mean God is salvation. (Transliteration Guide Gamma (with a G g sound) looks like a γ. Psi (ψ)
Iyo'ous Easous (Jesus) IESOU is pronounced phonetically IYESO'US in Greek (sometimes dropping the end S). Where is Zeus? Neither is it pronounced or spelled the same! The early church certainly did not relate the name Iseous to Zeus in any fashion. They often wrote about Zeus as a false God among the pagans and they did not mistake Jesus’ name for his. So this is just a smoke screen to bring fear into people.
Scrambling for a name or RealityHow far does this go? Many mock the word “God” and will use (gad) and say it is dog backward. They mock everything they can in the historic Church. So lets do a little scrambling for their namesake, sacred name with the c moved over really means they are scared of the truth. Anyone can play word assimilation and scramble the word’s meanings by sound. Which is what they do. Lets continue on and use their own logic in scrambling things up for sounds and meanings.
According to one group “the name Ea is also pagan,” so if they say, “lets go out to eat” they are now pronouncing the name of a Pagan God (Since it has the letters EA contained in the word). If we take their conclusions of using pagan names then the Hebrew calendar is to be rejected. Tammuz was the 4th month in the Hebrews sacred calendar. Are the Hebrews now pagans because it is also name of a pagan god? Were they calling on the pagan God? TAM'MUZ (tam'uz) was the name of the fourth Babylonian month and of an ancient Akkadian deity. (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary)
Babylonian names are still in use with the Hebrew calendar The Canaan names were used prior to the Babylonian captivity. We happen to still use pagan derived names for our days of the week. Does this make us pagans? Of course not!
Shua was a Canaanite whose daughter was married to Judah (1 Chron. 2:3). A daughter of Heber the Asherite (1 Chron. 7:32), there was also a Caananite named Shua in Gen.38:2. Can we now say that the name Ya-shua is pagan because it is being used in a pagan land. We can see how ridiculous this can get if their logic is followed through to its end.
Sh is a Hebrew pronunciation but it can be applied to sacred name lobbyists as, sh- meaning keep quiet and stop this nonsense.
Yahoo-shua has yahoo in it, so anytime one uses this word or the search engine on the internet they are taking God's name in vain (something to note: the sacred name groups are on this search engine too) so we can we see how ridiculous this all becomes? They need to take their own plank out of their eyes before they operate on the speck in their brothers.
"God esteems his word above all his name" (Ps.138:2)
If someone loves His Word and has respect for it why would they try to change it? How can they respect the Word when they deny it was written in Greek by the apostles who were Jewish! Instead they change it to Hebrew for their own predilection. So what are we seeing here? An intentional slant that may or may not be well meaning, but its end is divisive. Division is fine if it is for pure truth but this is not found in that category, it is deception.
The first thing we must consider is Psalm 138:2: “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” Jesus said "thy word is truth” and it is his teaching and understanding of Himself that he wants to convey to the people of the world. This is all done through His word, and through every language.
God is not a God of confusion; He makes Himself known by and through His revealed word in the Holy Bible. He has placed His Word above all His name. Those who love his name should not tamper with changing His Word.
Sacred name groups put down the word because it is not in the language they consider sacred (Hebrew), so they mock the word and in so doing mock His name. They may not willfully being doing this (although some are), but this certainly becomes the end result from there denial of the language the New Testament was actually written in.
If the Hebrew was such a sacred language, the Sanhedrin would not have translated it into the Greek almost 400 years before the messiah came. We will see later on that the word was to be proclaimed to all people in all languages (Book of Revelation) which means it was not limited to the Hebrew only.
It was the Roman catholic church's teaching that Latin was the sacred language and that the word of God was not to be translated in any other. John Wycliffe wanted the Scriptures translated in the common tongue just as the Greek (koine) was. The sacred name movement is making the same error about the name of God that the Catholic Church did for the words of God.
What name would Yashua be in Chinese or Russian instead of English? What Sacred Namer's do is change the Greek (or English) to Hebrew and then pronounce it in English, instead of in the Greek, the way it was actually written in. They insist that Hebrews only write and spoke Hebrew.
Since the Bible is God’s word it must be written in the same language as in the Old Testament. But they are wrong. Fact-There are parts that were written in Aramaic, whole portions of Daniel (Dan.2,8) are in Aramaic. And even 250 years before the time of Jesus it was translated to the common language of the day, Greek. Are we to reject parts in Aramaic because it is not written in the Holy language of Hebrew? Then to be logically consistently we must do so for the English as well. selah
Let us Reason