Jesus vs Yeshua - The Glorious Church2024-03-28T10:49:31Zhttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A37182&feed=yes&xn_auth=noMICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE sa…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-26:2853269:Comment:371832016-10-26T20:42:40.164ZMike R. Prevosthttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MikeRPrevost
<p></p>
<p><cite>MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A37182&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment37182"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I understand your hypothetical, bro. But, by the same notion, I don't know a single Apostolic that would "say nothing" in that situation. They would say the name during baptism, not just teach it. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br></br>So would I.…</p>
<p></p>
<p><cite>MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A37182&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment37182"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I understand your hypothetical, bro. But, by the same notion, I don't know a single Apostolic that would "say nothing" in that situation. They would say the name during baptism, not just teach it. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br/>So would I. But maybe not for the same reasons.<br/><br/></p>
<p>--- Mike R. Prevost</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> I understand your hypothetica…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-26:2853269:Comment:371822016-10-26T20:38:54.749ZMICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIEhttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MICHAELANDDELLAWINSKIE
<p>I understand your hypothetical, bro. But, by the same notion, I don't know a single Apostolic that would "say nothing" in that situation. They would say the name during baptism, not just teach it. </p>
<p>I understand your hypothetical, bro. But, by the same notion, I don't know a single Apostolic that would "say nothing" in that situation. They would say the name during baptism, not just teach it. </p> MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE s…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-26:2853269:Comment:370822016-10-26T15:28:23.090ZMike R. Prevosthttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MikeRPrevost
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><cite>MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A36685&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment36685"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I do agree that it is the Lord who does the work. However, he has instructed us to use his name. We are to pray in his name, baptize in his name, worship and praise in his name, work in his name, etc. So, while it is the Lord that…</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><cite>MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A36685&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment36685"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I do agree that it is the Lord who does the work. However, he has instructed us to use his name. We are to pray in his name, baptize in his name, worship and praise in his name, work in his name, etc. So, while it is the Lord that does the work and never us, it is the use of his name that he uses to release into motion whatever it is he wants to do through and in us. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Ok. You talked me into it. ;) I'll try to keep this somewhat on topic.</p>
<p>So, I have to give another hypothetical situation. Hypotheticals are used to narrow down on specific principles. This one really isn't that far out. Here it goes.</p>
<p></p>
<p>--- begin hypothetical ---</p>
<p><em>A new member approaches a minister about being baptized. The minister likes to handle this on a one-on-one basis, so they meet after work every night for a week and the minister teaches the new member about baptism. The minister teaches that baptism is performed in Jesus name, meaning in the authority of Jesus, obeying the command of Jesus, being baptized "into" Jesus, "</em>into the death" of Jesus, "<em>into the burial" of Jesus</em><em>, </em>into the Church of Jesus, <em>into the Body of Jesus, </em>into the Bride of Jesus, as a follower of Jesus, etc. The minister is happy that the new member has learned all this and that he is in complete agreement, so he asks the new member to come to the church on Saturday to be baptized. Saturday comes around and they both arrive at the church. <em>Only the minister and the new member are present. </em>The minister reviews all the teaching, including the fact that the baptism is performed in Jesus name. The new member agrees wholeheartedly with the teaching. After the review, the minister baptizes him, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">but says NOTHING</span> during the actual baptism. They pray and go their separate ways.</p>
<p>--- end hypothetical ---</p>
<p></p>
<p> <dramatic pause></p>
<p></p>
<p>I don't know a single serious Apostolic who would agree that this is a legitimate baptism: even though it was clear to all present that the baptism was done "in Jesus name", the guy wasn't legitimately baptized in Jesus name because the minister didn't "vibrate the air" by saying the words "in Jesus name" while baptizing the guy.</p>
<p>If "vibrating the air" really DOES matter, then perhaps it also matters HOW we vibrate the air (e.g., "Jesus" vs "Yeshua").</p>
<p></p>
<p>--- Mike R. Prevost</p>
<p></p> I do agree that it is the Lor…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-26:2853269:Comment:366852016-10-26T00:05:21.673ZMICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIEhttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MICHAELANDDELLAWINSKIE
<p>I do agree that it is the Lord who does the work. However, he has instructed us to use his name. We are to pray in his name, baptize in his name, worship and praise in his name, work in his name, etc. So, while it is the Lord that does the work and never us, it is the use of his name that he uses to release into motion whatever it is he wants to do through and in us. <br></br> <br></br> <cite>Mike R. Prevost said:…</cite></p>
<p>I do agree that it is the Lord who does the work. However, he has instructed us to use his name. We are to pray in his name, baptize in his name, worship and praise in his name, work in his name, etc. So, while it is the Lord that does the work and never us, it is the use of his name that he uses to release into motion whatever it is he wants to do through and in us. <br/> <br/> <cite>Mike R. Prevost said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A36982&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment36982"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><cite>MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A36882&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment36882"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I agreed with you, Bro Mike, until you said "calling on the name of the LORD" is just a fancy way of saying "calling on the LORD". Name means "authority." To leave that part out would be to lose access to the Lord and his power. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Sorry. I must be a little slow. Not understanding the issue. And I think that my response would lead us quite a ways off topic.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But you at least agree with this part right? "It is the LORD who does the work. Not the name."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p></p>
<p>--- Mike R. Prevost</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE sai…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-25:2853269:Comment:369822016-10-25T22:24:46.402ZMike R. Prevosthttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MikeRPrevost
<p><cite>MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A36882&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment36882"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I agreed with you, Bro Mike, until you said "calling on the name of the LORD" is just a fancy way of saying "calling on the LORD". Name means "authority." To leave that part out would be to lose access to the Lord and his…</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><cite>MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A36882&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment36882"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I agreed with you, Bro Mike, until you said "calling on the name of the LORD" is just a fancy way of saying "calling on the LORD". Name means "authority." To leave that part out would be to lose access to the Lord and his power. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Sorry. I must be a little slow. Not understanding the issue. And I think that my response would lead us quite a ways off topic.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But you at least agree with this part right? "It is the LORD who does the work. Not the name."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p></p>
<p>--- Mike R. Prevost</p>
<p></p> I agreed with you, Bro Mike,…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-25:2853269:Comment:368822016-10-25T21:34:08.861ZMICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIEhttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MICHAELANDDELLAWINSKIE
<p>I agreed with you, Bro Mike, until you said <span>"calling on the name of the LORD" is just a fancy way of saying "calling on the LORD". Name means "authority." To leave that part out would be to lose access to the Lord and his power. However, scripturally, the way we "call on the name of the Lord" in salvation is through baptism IN THE NAME of Jesus (Jeshua, Jesus', etc)- see Acts 22:16. Again, without the name (authority) being invoked in baptism, the baptism does nothing. …</span><br></br></p>
<p>I agreed with you, Bro Mike, until you said <span>"calling on the name of the LORD" is just a fancy way of saying "calling on the LORD". Name means "authority." To leave that part out would be to lose access to the Lord and his power. However, scripturally, the way we "call on the name of the Lord" in salvation is through baptism IN THE NAME of Jesus (Jeshua, Jesus', etc)- see Acts 22:16. Again, without the name (authority) being invoked in baptism, the baptism does nothing. </span><br/> <br/> <cite>Mike R. Prevost said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://gloriouschurch.ning.com/forum/topics/jesus-vs-yeshua?commentId=2853269%3AComment%3A36786&xg_source=msg_com_forum#2853269Comment36786"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I agree with you about "George" -- at least in our culture. I don't think you can just go make up your own name for God. However, even <em>having</em> a name is an anthropomorphism. But He has a specific name so that He can have an identity among men. So that He can be referenced and talked about. So that He can have a reputation. So that we can identify Him to others. So that we can label the works we do as being done for Him, in relation to Him, or as His agent -- works done "in His name". So making up your own name for God muddies His identity.</p>
<p>However IF (and this is, of course, VERY hypothetical) there was some language of men where it was appropriate to translate IESOUS into something that sounds like "George", then, yes, I would think He would respond to "George" for the same reason that He responds to "Jesus". I mean, if we were teleported back to the first century, and we started saying "Jesus" the way WE say it, no one would know Who we were talking about. </p>
<p>But Jesus would.</p>
<p>It is the LORD who does the work. Not the name. We call upon the LORD. The phrase "calling on the name of the LORD" is just a fancy way of saying "calling on the LORD".</p>
<p></p>
<p>Interesting topic.</p>
<p></p>
<p>--- Mike Prevost</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> I agree with you about "Georg…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-25:2853269:Comment:367862016-10-25T19:57:05.694ZMike R. Prevosthttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MikeRPrevost
<p>I agree with you about "George" -- at least in our culture. I don't think you can just go make up your own name for God. However, even <em>having</em> a name is an anthropomorphism. But He has a specific name so that He can have an identity among men. So that He can be referenced and talked about. So that He can have a reputation. So that we can identify Him to others. So that we can label the works we do as being done for Him, in relation to Him, or as His agent -- works done "in His…</p>
<p>I agree with you about "George" -- at least in our culture. I don't think you can just go make up your own name for God. However, even <em>having</em> a name is an anthropomorphism. But He has a specific name so that He can have an identity among men. So that He can be referenced and talked about. So that He can have a reputation. So that we can identify Him to others. So that we can label the works we do as being done for Him, in relation to Him, or as His agent -- works done "in His name". So making up your own name for God muddies His identity.</p>
<p>However IF (and this is, of course, VERY hypothetical) there was some language of men where it was appropriate to translate IESOUS into something that sounds like "George", then, yes, I would think He would respond to "George" for the same reason that He responds to "Jesus". I mean, if we were teleported back to the first century, and we started saying "Jesus" the way WE say it, no one would know Who we were talking about. </p>
<p>But Jesus would.</p>
<p>It is the LORD who does the work. Not the name. We call upon the LORD. The phrase "calling on the name of the LORD" is just a fancy way of saying "calling on the LORD".</p>
<p></p>
<p>Interesting topic.</p>
<p></p>
<p>--- Mike Prevost</p>
<p></p> Good point, Bro. Mike; howeve…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-25:2853269:Comment:366842016-10-25T18:22:20.667ZDavid Hustonhttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/DavidandBarbaraHuston
<p>Good point, Bro. Mike; however, if I call on the supreme God by vibrating the air so as to create the name George, I'm not so sure the God I am calling on will respond. Doesn't the significance given to the name Jesus in the New Testament indicate that God wants to be known by a particular name and will respond only to that name, regardless of the sincerity of the petitioner? The point of this discussion has been that the name Jesus produces differing vibrations depending on what language a…</p>
<p>Good point, Bro. Mike; however, if I call on the supreme God by vibrating the air so as to create the name George, I'm not so sure the God I am calling on will respond. Doesn't the significance given to the name Jesus in the New Testament indicate that God wants to be known by a particular name and will respond only to that name, regardless of the sincerity of the petitioner? The point of this discussion has been that the name Jesus produces differing vibrations depending on what language a person is speaking. I don't have any issue with that, but I would have an issue with George. </p> Hello everyone! Haven't been…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-10-24:2853269:Comment:367822016-10-24T22:28:40.361ZMike R. Prevosthttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MikeRPrevost
<p>Hello everyone! Haven't been here in awhile. Thought of you guys and just stopped by to see if the discussions have had any activity. Hope everyone is doing well.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I know this discussion is a bit old, and I haven't read all 4 pages of responses. Lot of talk about syllables and etymology. But thought I'd toss in an idea.</p>
<p></p>
<p>When you pronounce words out loud, there is sound -- the air vibrates. Different pronunciations vibrate the air differently. But there is…</p>
<p>Hello everyone! Haven't been here in awhile. Thought of you guys and just stopped by to see if the discussions have had any activity. Hope everyone is doing well.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I know this discussion is a bit old, and I haven't read all 4 pages of responses. Lot of talk about syllables and etymology. But thought I'd toss in an idea.</p>
<p></p>
<p>When you pronounce words out loud, there is sound -- the air vibrates. Different pronunciations vibrate the air differently. But there is NOTHING about the vibration of the air that has any spiritual effect.</p>
<ul>
<li>The pronouncing of His name (vibrating the air) does nothing. Not a magic formula.</li>
<li>The name is not a being/person. It is just a word we use to reference a being, so His name itself does nothing.</li>
<li>HE does everything -- the One who is referenced by the name.</li>
<li>There is "power in the name" only because there is power in the One referenced by it.</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>I just don't see that there is much to debate there.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So, the core of the issue is not how you vibrate the air, but Whom you are referencing. For evidence, consider these passages:</p>
<ul>
<li>"<em>To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to <strong>call upon <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the name</span> of the LORD</strong>.</em>" [Gen 4:6]</li>
<li>"<em>And he [Abram] removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and <strong>called upon <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the name</span> of the LORD</strong>.</em>" [Gen 12:8] </li>
<li>"<em>And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, <strong>by <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the name</span> of God Almighty</strong>, but <strong>by <span style="text-decoration: underline;">my name</span> JEHOVAH was I not known to them</strong>.</em>" [Exo 6:3]</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>So, from the pre-flood days all the way up to Moses, people "called on the name of the Lord", but they didn't use the name YHWH (however you want to say it). They referenced the same One, but with a different vibrations of the air. And the fact that they used different references, didn't really make any difference. The important thing was that they referenced the right One.</p>
<p></p>
<p>--- Mike R. Prevost</p>
<p></p> Hi Dave, The best I can offer…tag:gloriouschurch.ning.com,2016-08-24:2853269:Comment:364832016-08-24T23:02:43.987ZMike Gibsonhttp://gloriouschurch.ning.com/profile/MikeGibson
<p>Hi Dave, The best I can offer at this point is from the fact that both Iesus and Iesu were used to describe the same person we know as Jesus. In several languages this is true. At some point hundreds of years ago the English dropped "Iesu" or "Jesu" and went exclusively to Jesus.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I will post a few paragraphs explaining this.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr09.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr09.html…</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Hi Dave, The best I can offer at this point is from the fact that both Iesus and Iesu were used to describe the same person we know as Jesus. In several languages this is true. At some point hundreds of years ago the English dropped "Iesu" or "Jesu" and went exclusively to Jesus.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I will post a few paragraphs explaining this.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr09.html" target="_blank">http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr09.html</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial" size="2">Two hundred years before Jesus was born, Jewish scribes translated the Old Testament into Greek. They transliterated "Yehoshua" and "Yeshua" as "Iesou" (Yay-soo) and "Iesous" (Yay-soos). <strong>In both Greek and Latin, the "s" ending (Iesous {Greek} and Iesus {Latin}) is added in the nominative case only (when the name "Jesus" stands alone or is the subject of the verb). The "s" ending is not used in other cases.</strong> If you check a Greek or Latin text of the New Testament, you will find the Greek spelling "Iesou" and the Latin spelling "Iesu" are used when Jesus is not the subject of the verb, while the "s" endings (Iesous and Iesus) are used in the nominative case. In both of these languages it was proper to pronounce Jesus' name as "Yay-soo" or "Yay-soos" depending on the sentence structure. (In Spanish, both "Hay-soo" {Jesu} and "Hay-soos" {Jesus} are still used). In Exodus 17:9,10 of the Greek Old Testament (LXX), we find the name of Joshua as "Iesou" in verse 9 (Joshua not being the subject of the verb) and "Iesous" in verse 10 (Joshua being the subject of the verb). <strong>The "s" ending was added to Joshua's name by the Jewish scribes who translated the LXX, in order to conform to proper Greek grammar.</strong> This is also the case with all of the New Testament books as well, and in the early Latin translations. Since we do not make this distinction in modern English, the "s" ending is retained in all cases. So, the "s" ending was simply a function of Greek and Latin grammar, and has nothing to do with the name "Zeus."</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial" size="2"><font face="verdana,arial" size="2"><strong>When the Bible was first translated by Wycliffe from Latin into English, the Latin spelling "Iesus/Iesu" was retained. When William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English from the original Greek in 1525, he followed Wycliffe and also used the Latin spelling (Iesus/Iesu) because English uses the Latin alphabet. The other early English Bibles, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV all used the "Iesus/Iesu" spelling.</strong> Not until the 1629 edition of the KJV was the "Jesus" spelling used.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial" size="2">The only reason "Jesus" is spelled with a "J" instead of an "I" in our modern English Bibles is because of the evolution of the English language. <strong>English eventually dropped the practice of using the "s" ending only in the nominative case, and retained it regardless of case.</strong> In the sixteenth century, like Latin, the letter "I" was both a vowel and a consonant. As English evolved, the letter "I" became two letters. "I" retained the characteristics of the vowel exclusively, and a hook was added to the bottom to distinguish the consonant form (J). The pronunciation remained the same as Latin for both the vowel and consonant. By the time the 1629 edition of the KJV was published, the "J" was in wide use and was incorporated in this edition. Even though Jesus' name was spelled "Jesus" in the 1629 KJV, it was still pronounced exactly the same as in Greek and Latin (Yay-soos) and in the previous English versions. This is also very close to the pronunciation in Italian and Spanish, two other languages derived from Latin. Since the seventeenth century, the pronunciation of the letter "J" evolved into what it is today. In Spanish, "J" evolved into the "H" sound, Jesus being pronounced "Hay-soos/Hay-soo." In French, the "J" took on a unique sound. In English "J" evolved in pronunciation to its present form because of French influence on the language. Also, as English drifted away from its Latin roots, the vowel "e" evolved from the "ay" sound (as in Latin and Spanish) to the long "ee" and short "eh" vowel sounds. The "u" also developed a long "ou" and short "uh" sound in English. Hence over the last 500 years, the pronunciation of the Latin spelling "Iesus" slowly evolved from "Yay-soos" to "Jee-sus." The <b>spelling</b> has followed the normal transliteration process from Greek, to Latin, to modern English. The <b>pronunciation</b> in the earliest English versions was precisely the same as the original Greek. The only real change in pronunciation, from the time of Christ until today, is due solely to the evolution of the English language in the last 500 years. The pronunciation remained the same for 1500 years in both Greek, Latin, and was retained unchanged in the languages which use the Roman alphabet - early English, Spanish, Italian, and German.</font></p>
<p></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial" size="2">Me...So in short I think I was wrong in believing Iesu or "Jesu" was used exclusively for several centuries in English. Apparently they were both used for a long time then "Jesu" was discontinued. <br/></font></p>
<p></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial" size="2">Peace and love, Mike</font></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>