True Name of the Messiah

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yerusha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you mean calling him Y’shua?

I don’t think so, he’s in our heart whether we call him Y’shua or Jesus, or whatever his name would be in another language.
 
No. This is an unhealthy fixation that a very small minority of Christians have that comes from the devil. It is perfectly acceptable for people to use the name of Jesus in their native language.
 
Last edited:
I Mean Yahusha. Because in proverbs 30:4 it says “Who has gone up to the heavens
and come down?
Who has gathered the wind
in His fists?
Who has bound the waters
in a garment?
Who established all the end
of the earth?
What is His Name, And what is His
Son’s Name, If you know it?”
Thats why I was just thinking that His Name might be important.
 
It’s not too terribly important. As long as we’re obeying Him, God doesn’t mind if we call His Son by His Jewish name or the Anglicized version we have today.
 
If God wanted us to call Jesus by any other name, that name would’ve been revealed in His written Word.

As long as we call on Him, it doesn’t matter whether we call Him Yeshua, Jesus, Emmanuel/Immanuel or I Am.
 
Yeah i am thinking of that too doing a good work maybe is enough. But i was just confused when reading the Bible verse John 5:43 saying;
“43 For I have come to you in my Father’s name, and you have rejected me. Yet if others come in their own name, you gladly welcome them” .
Just being sentimental with this verse about his name. I pray i can understand everything.
 
In one’s own language, not a name with no meaning in the heart, nor in some kind of fear to offend. ( The Name | SoftVocation ) The Name is one of confident hope.

John Martin
 
The Apostle Paul didn’t have any trouble preaching him as Iesous. If using the correct Hebrew or Aramaic name was supposed to be important, I would think that he would have known.

D
 
Ancient Jewish sources refer to Jesus as “Yeshu ben Pantera,” a name which stems from their belief that the biological father of Jesus was a Roman soldier whose name was “Pantera.” Some Christian theologians such as James Tabor also buy into this idea. Evidence supporting this theory has been found in Germany.


However, a recent research* into the DNA of the blood found on the Shroud has identified a very unusual gene which indicates that the man who was buried therein was the product of a virgin birth.

Therefore, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Mary might have been in love with (but not “lover” of) a young Jewish man (Abdes) who had enlisted in the Roman army and taken the name, Tiberius Abdes Pantera. Her parents would not allow her to marry him, and when the noticed that she was in a family way, they assumed the worst and pawned her off to an older widowed carpenter.

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST !, Fanti/Malfi, 2015
 
Last edited:
We should avoid thinking of the name of God as a secret which gives power to the one who knows it, like a magic spell or a password.

At times, Jesus did say “in my name,” for example:
“Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me.”

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

“If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.”

“Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.”
Click to expand...
How are we to understand this? What is important is not our correct pronunciation of the name, but rather our desire and intention to call Jesus – to call the person, not merely the name. The key is not our knowledge of Jesus, but our relationship with Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Even in Messianic circles, where I was for over 20 years, there is a difference of opinion in exactly how his name is pronounced. So Y’shua, Yahusha, Yahoshua…a Rose by any other name… That’s a great verse, though.
 
The same question as OP: is it okay to pray “Hashem melech, Hashem malach, Hashem yimlock, le olem vaed” in exchange of “Glory be to God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever”
 
undead_rat said:
However, a recent research* into the DNA of the blood found on the Shroud has identified a very unusual gene which indicates that the man who was buried therein was the product of a virgin birth.
Click to expand...
Respectfully opinion only with lots of ???
 
undead_rat said:
Ancient Jewish sources refer to Jesus as “Yeshu ben Pantera,” a name which stems from their belief that the biological father of Jesus was a Roman soldier whose name was “Pantera.” Some Christian theologians such as James Tabor also buy into this idea. Evidence supporting this theory has been found in Germany.

Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia

However, a recent research* into the DNA of the blood found on the Shroud has identified a very unusual gene which indicates that the man who was buried therein was the product of a virgin birth.

Therefore, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Mary might have been in love with (but not “lover” of) a young Jewish man (Abdes) who had enlisted in the Roman army and taken the name, Tiberius Abdes Pantera. Her parents would not allow her to marry him, and when the noticed that she was in a family way, they assumed the worst and pawned her off to an older widowed carpenter.

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST !, Fanti/Malfi, 2015
Click to expand...
How on earth would a virgin birth be reflected in a person’s genes? Especially given that birth is something that happens well after sperm and egg meet and so well after a person’s genes are fixed? Would the genes change if the mother lost her virginity in between conception and birth (thus rendering it no longer a virgin birth)?
 
Last edited:
As Origen said in Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter 32:
"…Let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost.

"For they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.

“It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don’t see why not. I often say, Baruch Atah Adonai. (Blessed are you Lord)
 
The Virgin Birth is defined by the fact that a spermatozoa is not involved in the conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top