'The Great Apostasy'

[Marie5890]

[The Jews of the time *were

bilingual -they had to be - however…]

Miriam (Mary) was Jewish…she and Yosef (Joseph) spoke Hebrew; the language of their people during that period.

Ancient Aramaic predated Hebrew… but again - like my previous post points out - as time passes and language develops the name “Eashoa” became “Yehoushua” for the language of Hebrew. But [Jesus] was not born in the time period of “Aramaic Lingua” but when the Israelites spoke “Hebrew Lingua” as a common tongue.

Eashoa is the Aramaic source of his name…and my name. But just as my name is “Joshua” (not “Yehshua” or “Eashua”), so is His name “Yehshua” (not “Eashoa” or “Joshua”, or “Jesus”)…because of the time when we were born.

Yeh = “E”

ou = “a”

Shu = “sho”

a = “a”

“Yehoushua”, which was shortened to “Yehshua” or “Yeshu” (“u” silent; or of the breath)

I have heard that, due to poor translation, “Mary” is really never the the Blessed Mother’s name, but should have been translated as Miriam?

Is that true?

 

[Stephen168]

Well first, the conversation begins some time ago, so unless you’ve already read why I gave the following explanation, it can be confusing; it’s like walking in on a conversation already in progress.

But “wow”! Do all of us lack such humility? Your name is Steven; on your birth records your name is “steven”…not “Esteban”. Your parents named you “Steven”, not “Esteban”, nor “Stephanos”. You’ve named your identity (on this forum) “Steve”. As far as we know, we will respect you by calling you either Steve or Steven (as you’ve also pointed out).

Should I call you Charles, as long as you know I’m talking to you?

Should I refer to you by an name other than the one you were given? For my convenience?

Truly, if I use another name, surely you’ll know I’m talking to you, right?

Actually he said his name was Stephen. What is your point?

 

[SteveVH]

Well first, the conversation begins some time ago, so unless you’ve already read why I gave the following explanation, it can be confusing; it’s like walking in on a conversation already in progress.

But “wow”! Do all of us lack such humility? Your name is Steven; on your birth records your name is “steven”…not “Esteban”. Your parents named you “Steven”, not “Esteban”, nor “Stephanos”. You’ve named your identity (on this forum) “Steve”. As far as we know, we will respect you by calling you either Steve or Steven (as you’ve also pointed out).

Should I call you Charles, as long as you know I’m talking to you?

Should I refer to you by an name other than the one you were given? For my convenience?

Truly, if I use another name, surely you’ll know I’m talking to you, right?

When I am around my Spanish friends they call me Esteban. It is the Spanish version of Stephen, not a different name, not Charles.

Actually I can’t believe I got sucked into this one. Isn’t the topic of this Thread “The Great Apostasy”?

 

[Joshua27]

“Is Mary’s true name ‘Miriam’”?, Yes. But only because of time period of when she was born…that’s all I’m saying.

This kind of debate reminds me of the nit-picking that drove Christ crazy with the Pharisees!! LOL

I think it’s more simple than a forum forces it to be (because of all of the replying)…and (one would think) if we cared enough to honor him, we would call him by his name.

I guess it boils down to “is He a lifeless object for each one of us to posseses (as if to put in our back-pockets; that essentially conforms to us), or was/is He a real person which we would respect like any other person living (that we humbly choose to conform to)?”

[Revelation 3:8]

I know thy works; behold I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

…I gotta step out for a second, but please debate and continue the discussion.

 

[Stephen168]

You missed the point. If I move to Spain, while it is possible for me to keep my name, it is also customary to adopt a Spanish name, but not just any old name, I would use the one that is equivalent to my name in English.

When I was in Puerto Rico, I introduced myself as Estaban and my friends introduced themselves and Tomas and Jorge.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I do not deny Christ. I believe He is God, born of the Virgin Mary, died on a cross, and was resurrected. I believe He found His Church upon Simon Peter (Cephas). I believe everything that the Bible teaches as well as what the Tradition of the Catholic Church teaches.

That is what is important. Even if all the names were changed, it would not change what really happened. Maybe this is why God simply referred to Himself as “I AM” (Although for sure He used that titles so as not to be confused with all the “gods” that people believed in.)

 

[Joshua27]

You missed the point. If I move to Spain, while it is possible for me to keep my name, it is also customary to adopt a Spanish name, but not just any old name, I would use the one that is equivalent to my name in English.

[Man…I really gotta go…“ok” this is the last one and I’ll be back]

YOU chose to use another name…no one else chose another name for you. It was your decision. But if you [god forbid] passed away; no longer is it your choice to adopt another name…and on your grave YOUR (true) name (not a version) will be etched in stone. It would be a dishonor to call you by anything other than your given name, especially when you no longer have the option to weigh in yourself.

In your physical absence, your true name should always be used in YOUR honor.

This is my point when it comes to “Yehshua”…that’s all.

 

[SteveVH]

“Is Mary’s true name ‘Miriam’”?, Yes. But only because of time period of when she was born…that’s all I’m saying.

I think it’s more simple than a forum forces it to be (because of all of the replying)…and (one would think) if we cared enough to honor him, we would call him by his name.

I guess it boils down to “is He a lifeless object for each one of us to posseses (as if to put in our back-pockets; that essentially conforms to us), or was/is He a real person which we would respect like any other person living (that we humbly choose to conform to)?”

[Revelation 3:8]

…I gotta step out for a second, but please debate and continue the discussion.

I’m trying to imagine Jesus, sitting at the right hand of God the Father, disheartened and upset because He is being called Jesus and has been for centuries.

May I suggest we move on from this discussion and get back on topic.

 

[Marie5890]

“Is Mary’s true name ‘Miriam’”?, Yes. But only because of time period of when she was born…that’s all I’m saying.

I think it’s more simple than a forum forces it to be (because of all of the replying)…and (one would think) if we cared enough to honor him, we would call him by his name.

I guess it boils down to “is He a lifeless object for each one of us to posseses (as if to put in our back-pockets; that essentially conforms to us), or was/is He a real person which we would respect like any other person living (that we humbly choose to conform to)?”

[Revelation 3:8]

…I gotta step out for a second, but please debate and continue the discussion.

I cant speak about others, but I tend to refer to Him as Christ, Lord, or Jesus Christ.
And I don’t feel it disrespectful at all.

When any of us venture into another culture, the pronunciation of our names often evolve. Those of us who have families who are decendents of immigrants.

Both my grandmother (Polish) and grandfather (Italian) were born here but given names by their parents that were part of their native tongue. On their birth certificates too. However, they were never referred to by those names but their English equivalent.

My grandmother was called “Bernice” (I dont know what the Polish name would be)
My grandfather was called “Jack” (his Italian name being Giacomo).

I dont believe they were being disrespected.
I have a friend, Polish native. When we first met I asked her name and she said “Margret”. I asked her to tell me her given Polish name because I wanted to know it. She told me…I gave her a look like this---- -----She laughed and said, my name is “Margret”

So no, I cant imagine that Christ would feel slighted or disrespected over the evolution of the name they He is called by…

 

[dusza]

My grandmother was called “Bernice” (I dont know what the Polish name would be)

Your grandma’s name was probably Berenika.

 

[Joshua27]

I cant speak about others, but I tend to refer to Him as Christ, Lord, or Jesus Christ.
And I don’t feel it disrespectful at all.

When any of us venture into another culture, the pronunciation of our names often evolve. Those of us who have families who are decendents of immigrants.

Both my grandmother (Polish) and grandfather (Italian) were born here but given names by their parents that were part of their native tongue. On their birth certificates too. However, they were never referred to by those names but their English equivalent.

My grandmother was called “Bernice” (I dont know what the Polish name would be)
My grandfather was called “Jack” (his Italian name being Giacomo).

I dont believe they were being disrespected.

I’d have to wonder whether they somehow “allowed” people to call them by English equivalents by not disputing it.

I have a friend, Polish native. When we first met I asked her name and she said “Margret”. I asked her to tell me her given Polish name because I wanted to know it. She told me…I gave her a look like this---- -----She laughed and said, my name is “Margret”

So no, I cant imagine that Christ would feel slighted or disrespected over the evolution of the name they He is called by…

I guess it depends on the person…and the Messiah.

I don’t know if you’re aware, but a LOT of people named “Joshua” HATE to be called “Josh”, saying, “that’s not my name. Please, don’t call me that.” (and vice-versa for people named “Josh” for “Joshua”). I understand your point, because - for me - I don’t care whether someone calls me Josh or Joshua. But could it be a little presumptuous to say “I don’t feel its disrespectful (to Him)” or “I can’t believe [He] would feel disrespected”, when it’s not on us to make such a determination, but on Him? At least you can ask your friend & grandparents for the truth.

I guess we won’t know until He returns and let’s us know

Final Blurb: What if…as the entire world is waiting for and anticipating “Jesus”, the Son of God shows up saying “I the Son of God have returned”? They ask him, “is your name Jesus”? And he answers, “No…my name is Yehshua.” What would many say to him? What is their probable reply?

…but yeah…we’ve steered off course. The point of my entry was to show that there are corruptions in the Bible as simple as the letter “J” (and the sound of “J”), which is only 600-800 years old. So those “J” carriers who lived back in [Jesus]'s time, and even [Joshua] son of Nun’s time, are not given their original names in the Bible.

 

[aspirant]

My name is Joshua…a name given to me by my parents

That’s how your name is written in a modern English alphabet. That is not how it would be written in Greek, Russian, Hindi, or Chinese. They don’t use our alphabet, but Greek, Cyrillic, Devanāgarī, and Sinographs. To write your name in another alphabet or system of writing would require transliteration.

And in some cases, transliteration necessarily alters pronunciation. There are some writing systems, for example, that would not allow my name to end with the English hard T sound. A vowel sound would have to follow it, even though the English name does not end that way.

It is absurd, petty, and frankly futile to insist that this should not be allowed.

A hundred years later, when my great grandchildren hear stories about me, my name will still be Joshua

They will not necessarily spell or pronounce it as you do.

“Yehshua” was a common Israelite name given to boys

Not if you’re forbidding transliteration. ישוע (and variants) was a common Israelite name, not Yeshua.

Now…when we talk about this man, hundreds of years later, should we call him by a new name or should we call him - who was already born and exists - by the name his parent’s originally gave him?

Unless you’re arguing that God disapproves of the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments), transliterating names, even in ways that change the pronunciation, is a perfectly acceptable practice. The New Testament writers, for example, didn’t write ישוע, but Ιησους. That’s not “linguistic error,” it’s how the Messiah’s name is written in Greek.

Personally, I don’t believe that God opposes the practice of the biblical writers, nor do I believe that the Messiah is even half as stupid and petty as your posts seem to suggest.

His name was - and will always be - Yehshua.

Not, again, if you really maintain that transliteration is unacceptable. If transliteration is wrong, then you should not be using a modified Roman alphabet to write or type the name at all.

 

[Joshua27]

It is absurd, petty, and frankly futile to insist that this should not be allowed.

Absurd, petty, and frankly futile for another language to pronounce MY name the way I want it pronounced…Names Proper are a “no-no”. Listen to yourself: “well…everyone does it…”

They will not necessarily spell or pronounce it as you do.

Names Proper are a “no-no”. How they pronounce their “Joshua” is non-consequential to how I pronounce mine. McDonalds is pronounced McDonalds because that is how they wanted to pronounce it. Gerard Depardieu is pronounced Gerard Depardieu everywhere because that is what He said his name is. Name Proper = nouns representing unique entities…and if they’re important enough they should NOT be pronounced differently.

So the question is “is the Messiah’s name important enough?” I guess it’s not that important to you…fine.

Not if you’re forbidding transliteration. ישוע (and variants) was a common Israelite name, not Yeshua.

So to disprove my point…you help me make my point even further? Thanks for the Hebrew. You can’t possibly equate “Jesus” to ישוע phonetically without going through several stages of transliteration, while I can sit here and say that ישוע is pronounced “Yehshua”. This is my point…

ישוע - pronounced “Yehshua” - is the Messiah’s name, not Jesus.

Unless you’re arguing that God disapproves of the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments), transliterating names, even in ways that change the pronunciation, is a perfectly acceptable practice. The New Testament writers, for example, didn’t write ישוע, but Ιησους. That’s not “linguistic error,” it’s how the Messiah’s name is written in Greek.

This is why its important to read the conversation…the point of this thread is Apostasy; I pointed out that there’s evidence of corruption in the Bible simply because "J"s (the SOUND of "J"s) is only 600-800 years old so the names of the “J”-people of the bible are not the accurate names. This is a error because while you and I know of this fact, not many “faithful” people know the bible has been transliterated (or even what transliteration is).

Ye | sh | ua (ישוע) = Hebrew
Ie | s | ous* (Ιησους) = Greek
Ie | so | us = Latin
Je** | s | us = English (pronounced “Yesus” prior to 1400-1500s)

*From Hebrew to Greek the last syllable was changed, NOT because of pronounciation, but because Greek scribes believe a male’s name should not end in an “a” (feminine ending).

**“J”, even when after making its debut, was still pronounced as an “i”, so even after the bible was translation into Latin and English, “Jesus” was still pronounced “Yesus” [the early chuch knew this pronounciation, and knew where it came from] (the first English bible was in the 1300s), since both “J” and “i” were pronounced as "i"s [writers were becoming lazy and began curving the end of "i"s]. But around 1400-1500s or so - not that long ago - "J"s were given the “gee-uh” sound.

So even if the name was translated in to other languages, if these 2 corruptions (of time and optinion) were not made, the name would be “Jesua”, pronounced “Yesua” even today.

Personally, I don’t believe that God opposes the practice of the biblical writers, nor do I believe that the Messiah is even half as stupid and petty as your posts seem to suggest.

“Tisk-Tisk.” First, you make your own baseless assumption, (At least my assumption is based on scripture [Revelation 3:8])…and then you reduce your argument to name-calling? Come-on…you can do better than this. This is what happens when one has nothing else of relevance to say just to prove their point.

Not, again, if you really maintain that transliteration is unacceptable. If transliteration is wrong, then you should not be using a modified Roman alphabet to write or type the name at all.

[Ridiculous… ] I’m on an Online, English-Speaking forum thread. I can’t use my voice to pronounce the name “Yehshua”. Now let’s get back to “The Great Apostasy” topic, please.

 

[ParkerD]

Absurd, petty, and frankly futile for another language to pronounce MY name the way I want it pronounced…Names Proper are a “no-no”. Listen to yourself: “well…everyone does it…”

Names Proper are a “no-no”. How they pronounce their “Joshua” is non-consequential to how I pronounce mine. McDonalds is pronounced McDonalds because that is how they wanted to pronounce it. Gerard Depardieu is pronounced Gerard Depardieu everywhere because that is what He said his name is. Name Proper = nouns representing unique entities…and if they’re important enough they should NOT be pronounced differently.

So the question is “is the Messiah’s name important enough?” I guess it’s not that important to you…fine.

So to disprove my point…you help me make my point even further? Thanks for the Hebrew. You can’t possibly equate “Jesus” to ישוע phonetically without going through several stages of transliteration, while I can sit here and say that ישוע is pronounced “Yehshua”. This is my point…

ישוע - pronounced “Yehshua” - is the Messiah’s name, not Jesus.

This is why its important to read the conversation…the point of this thread is Apostasy; I pointed out that there’s evidence of corruption in the Bible simply because "J"s (the SOUND of "J"s) is only 600-800 years old so the names of the “J”-people of the bible are not the accurate names. This is a error because while you and I know of this fact, not many “faithful” people know the bible has been transliterated (or even what transliteration is).

Ye | sh | ua (ישוע) = Hebrew
Ie | s | ous* (Ιησους) = Greek
Ie | so | us = Latin
Je** | s | us = English (pronounced “Yesus” prior to 1400-1500s)

*From Hebrew to Greek the last syllable was changed, NOT because of pronounciation, but because Greek scribes believe a male’s name should not end in an “a” (feminine ending).

**“J”, even when after making its debut, was still pronounced as an “i”, so even after the bible was translation into Latin and English, “Jesus” was still pronounced “Yesus” [the early chuch knew this pronounciation, and knew where it came from] (the first English bible was in the 1300s), since both “J” and “i” were pronounced as "i"s [writers were becoming lazy and began curving the end of "i"s]. But around 1400-1500s or so - not that long ago - "J"s were given the “gee-uh” sound.

So even if the name was translated in to other languages, if these 2 corruptions (of time and optinion) were not made, the name would be “Jesua”, pronounced “Yesua” even today.

“Tisk-Tisk.” First, you make your own baseless assumption, (At least my assumption is based on scripture [Revelation 3:8])…and then you reduce your argument to name-calling? Come-on…you can do better than this. This is what happens when one has nothing else of relevance to say just to prove their point.

[Ridiculous… ] I’m on an Online, English-Speaking forum thread. I can’t use my voice to pronounce the name “Yehshua”. Now let’s get back to “The Great Apostasy” topic, please.

Hi, Joshua27,
I haven’t participated in this thread but had noticed your very enlightening set of comments ending with this one, and wanted to thank you for reiterating your point in a clarifying way.

I hope others noticed TheosisM’s post that noted that there have been other recent threads on this particular topic of the “Great Apostasy”.

The prophecies that there would be a “seizing” (Matthew 21:38) or a “prevailing” against the saints (Daniel 7:21; Revelation 13:7) or an honoring “me with their lips but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men” (Isaiah 29:13), among others, demonstrate that God foresaw that there would be changes in the doctrines (Isaiah 24:5) that would necessitate that another angel be sent to the earth “to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,…” (Revelation 14:6) to restore that which had been changed.

Loss of purity in the doctrines does not mean everyone lost their way or have not had sincere hearts with many good outcomes through their love of God and service to others. It means that for God to bring the house of Israel back into the covenant-making promises He made in the Old Testament whereby He would keep His covenants and Israel’s descendants would keep theirs and bring the Gentiles into the gospel covenant with a uniting of Judah and his fellows, Ephraim and his fellows, and the Gentiles, the covenants needed to be re-established in their purity. The keeping of those covenants leads to accepting Christ’s promises, following a path toward sanctification, and receiving the covenant promise of becoming a joint heir with Him through His mercy and grace and the power given to Him by His Father and our Father.

 

[aspirant]

Absurd, petty, and frankly futile for another language to pronounce MY name the way I want it pronounced…

Frankly, yes. It’s the kind of thing one would insist upon only if one doesn’t understand how other languages work.

Listen to yourself: “well…everyone does it…” …I guess it’s not that important to you…fine.

If you misunderstood what I wrote that badly, I strongly recommend spending more time studying languages.

McDonalds is pronounced McDonalds because that is how they wanted to pronounce it.

Among English speakers. The name sounds different when transliterated into Korean and pronounced by Korean speakers. More like “Meck-do-nel-dee.” And no reasonable person would be offended by this.

Gerard Depardieu is pronounced Gerard Depardieu everywhere

Except for the fact that many non-French speakers pronounce it quite differently than French speakers, and in some cases they really have no choice: not all languages include these sounds, so not all tongues are trained to say them.

Just try to teach American Anglophones to say “cigarillo” or “Eichhörnchen.” It’s hilarious how few can even make the necessary sounds.

You can’t possibly equate “Jesus” to ישוע phonetically without going through several stages of transliteration

As I’ve been saying.

not many “faithful” people know the bible has been transliterated (or even what transliteration is).

Ye | sh | ua (ישוע) = Hebrew
Ie | s | ous* (Ιησους) = Greek
Ie | so | us = Latin
Je** | s | us = English (pronounced “Yesus” prior to 1400-1500s)

And this is all perfectly acceptable, unless you’re suggesting that God opposes the normal practices of the biblical authors.

then you reduce your argument to name-calling?

There was no name-calling.

I’m on an Online, English-Speaking forum thread.

One that does not require transliteration from Hebrew to English. So if transliteration is “wrong,” then you should not be using a modified Roman alphabet to write or type the name at all.

 

[Joshua27]

Among English speakers. The name sounds different when transliterated into Korean and pronounced by Korean speakers. More like “Meck-do-nel-dee.” And no reasonable person would be offended by this.

lol…you’re right! You win!

“MECK-DO-NEL-DEE-SU”…“MAC-DO-NAL-D-S”.

“YE-EH-SHU-WAH”…“GE-E-Z-US”.

So go on…by all means keep using Jesus. I wonder though… If when Yeshua returns and you call attention to him by shouting “Jesus!”, what if he says, “that’s not my name”? Would you reply, “you’re being unresonable, Jesus, that’s the name by which I know you, so that’s the name I’m going to continue to call you”? And if so, I wonder how he would reply? It’s quite possible that He - the King of Kings - may conform to you and say “ok”…or there’s a slim possibility that He - the King of all Kings, whom has all right and authority - might say, “then you never knew me.”

Messiah also sounded unreasonable when he said [Matthew 7:22-23]

22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?

23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

Not even an inch did Messiah budge back then, so what if He has this type of personality when He returns?

My point has little to do with transliteration and more do to with humility…If you were asked by God or the Messiah to change the way you are - today - from what you’ve grown accustomed to over your life (as it pertains to your faith), would you change or would you be rigid and defend your tradition, essentially telling God and the Messiah, “No. YOU change for me”?

 

[aspirant]

I wonder though… If when Yeshua returns and you call attention to him by shouting “Jesus!”, what if he says, “that’s not my name”?

The probability that the Messiah is either that ignorant or that petty is nil, so it’s not really a concern. We have it on very good authority that he’s not a jackass.

Messiah also sounded unreasonable when he said [Matthew 7:22-23]

Not at all.

Not even an inch did Messiah budge back then

Unless you’re now claiming that transliteration (something the Gospel itself employs) is a violation of God’s laws, actually sinful, this passage isn’t relevant to the topic.

If you were asked by God or the Messiah to change the way you are - today - from what you’ve grown accustomed to over your life (as it pertains to your faith), would you change

I strive to do so every day, empowered by the grace of God, and I hope everyone else will too. That’s what living a life of conversion is about.

 

[Joshua27]

The probability that the Messiah is either that ignorant or that petty is nil, so it’s not really a concern. We have it on very good authority that he’s not a jackass.

That’s a great way to duck the question, unless you’re calling Messiah ignorant, petty or a jackass if he did act that way? I never asked you whether it’s your concern, I asked you for your response to the hypothetical. What’s your answer? Also - after you answer, “what authority (man; the One Holy Catholic and Apostilic Church)?” If this is your answer we’re back where we started…at the flaws in their interpretations.

Unless you’re now claiming that transliteration (something the Gospel itself employs) is a violation of God’s laws, actually sinful, this passage isn’t relevant to the topic.

Tiss relevant, to show how he can “appear” seemingly unreasonable to we who are too prideful [which actually shows there isn’t room for compromise]…So when he says “you have not denied my name”, [Revelation 3:8] you believe such is open for interpretation or compromise too, right?

I strive to do so every day, empowered by the grace of God, and I hope everyone else will too. That’s what living a life of conversion is about.

I don’t think you understood my question [either that or you’re intentionally ducking a question once again], so here goes again (rephrased):

If God or Messiah told you “your Religion/Tradition is wrong and if you want to worship me you must change”, would you change or would you respond saying, “No, YOU change”? It shouldn’t be difficult to answer; it’s a simple “what if” question to see which is more important: Religious Tradition or God & Messiah.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s a great way to duck the question, unless you’re saying Messiah would be ignorant, petty or a jackass if he did act that way? I never asked you whether it’s your concern, I asked you for your response to the hypothetical. What’s your answer? Also - after you answer, “what authority (man; the One Holy Catholic and Apostilic Church)?”

Tiss relevant, to show how he can “appear” seemingly unreasonable to we who are too prideful [which actually shows there isn’t room for compromise]…So when he says “you have not denied my name”, [Revelation 3:8] you believe such is open for interpretation or compromise too, right?

I don’t think you understood my question [either that or you’re intentionally ducking a question once again], so here goes again (rephrased):

If God or Messiah told you “your Religion/Tradition is wrong and if you want to worship me you must change”, would you change or would you respond saying, “No, YOU change”?

Shall we dicount the book of Genesis because God created light before He created the sun? Shall we discount the Gospels because the same event may have been described slightly differently? I’m always amazed at the lengths people will go to to prove their points. It reminds me of the JW’s who appraoch you with “do you know God’s name?” They are so proud of the fact that they call God “Jehovah” and that this is somehow suppose to prove that they are a legitimate church.

Your obsession with the correct name of Jesus is no different. You have nothing of substance to prove corruption of scripture other than a transliteration of a name. That is what happens when you have no authentic teacher. You’re missing the forest.

 

[chessmane4e5]

So go on…by all means keep using Jesus. I wonder though… If when Yeshua returns and you call attention to him by shouting “Jesus!”, what if he says, “that’s not my name”? Would you reply, “you’re being unresonable, Jesus, that’s the name by which I know you, so that’s the name I’m going to continue to call you”? And if so, I wonder how he would reply? It’s quite possible that He - the King of Kings - may conform to you and say “ok”…or there’s a slim possibility that He - the King of all Kings, whom has all right and authority - might say, “then you never knew me.”

What if when Jesus returns, you call out “Yeshua” and He says, “Please, call me Jesus.”

We can what if all day. You have made your point and obviously you feel very strongly about it. Realistically though, if you went all around the world talking to people and introducing yourself, how many of those people would pronounce your name correctly?

I remember when I took Chinese in college and how difficult it was to pronounce the words exactly right. This is a good reason to translate a name. Better that than mispronounced and eventually unrecognizable.