In the name of “Jesus”?

08 May

Hagia Sophia ; Empress Zoë mosaic : Christ Pan...

Hagia Sophia ; Empress Zoë mosaic : Christ Pantocrator; Istanbul, Turkey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of my readers commented on my previous article (“On this rock I will build my church”—OK, but which “rock”?).  He quoted part of my text, “That’s the ‘rock’ on which the church of Christ is built—the fundamental principle that the being we now (incorrectly) call ‘Jesus is the Christ (chosen one) and Son of the living God.”

The reader then explained and asked:

“‘Jesus’ is the English pronunciation of the Greek name “Iesous”, which is what the authors of the New Testament, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, called the Christ.  What do you find to be ‘incorrect’ in this conversion from Greek to English for the sake of pronunciation?”

I’ll answer as follows:

My proper, Christian name is “Alfred”.

Years ago, I visited Mexico on several occasions and sometimes lived there for 3 to 5 months at a time.  I had friends in Mexico who called me “Alfredo”.  I took no offense.

But the fact remains that my proper, Christian name is “Alfred” and has been ever since my parents gave me that name 68 years ago.  Other have called me “Al,” “Alfie,” “Butch” and other nicknames too numerous to mention.  But my proper, Christian name has always been and, so far as I know, will always be, “Alfred”.

I’ll bet that the Christ was never once called “Jesus” by his mother, earthly father, family, friends, apostles or disciples or even Pontius Pilate.  So far as I know, during His earthly life, the Christ never once referred to Himself as “Jesus”.

Therefore, I conclude that “Jesus” is not His true and proper name.  I don’t argue that the Christ takes any more offense at being addressed by the alias “Jesus” than I took when friends called me “Alfredo”.

I will, however, argue that calling the Christ by his proper name is more respectful than calling him by a Greek alias.

• We know that the Greek, and later English, transliterations of the Christ’s name are not His true name.  So, why do people insist on praying in the “name of Christ” and then not using the Christ’s actual name?  Will the Christ understand that, even when people pray in a name that is not the Christ’s, that they nevertheless mean to pray to the Christ?  Probably.

But why take that chance?

Q:  If I, in my heart and mind, determine that the proper translation for the Christ’s name is “Billy Bob,” can I pray to “Billy Bob” tonight and expect my prayers to be answered or even received?

A:  If my heart is in the right place, maybe so.

But why take a chance on praying to Billy Bob?

Why not pray in the true name of the Christ?

Q:  What is wrong with trying to know the name actually used by the Christ while he was alive and then use that name in our prayers?

A:  Using the Christ’s actual name violates the “traditions of men”.  It is by means of such “traditions” that we have come to call the Christ by a name that the Christ probably never used or even heard once during his earthly life.

We call the Christ “Jesus” because virtually everyone else who speaks English calls the Christ “Jesus”. That makes “Jesus” a technical falsehood that has nevertheless become a “tradition of men”.  If I recall correctly, there are verses in the Bible that warn against substituting the “traditions of men” for spiritual truths.

I won’t claim the “tradition” of calling the Christ by the name “Jesus” is sinful or grounds for damnation.  But I am saying, Why take a chance?  Why not show the Christ enough respect to call Him by the same name, the same sound, by which He was addressed and to which He answered while he was here on Earth?

•  Down in Mexico, Mexican friends might call me “Alfredo”.  But suppose I had to sign a contract, or a check, or a credit card receipt, and I used the name “Alfredo” rather than “Alfred”.  Would that contract stand up in court?  Would my check clear the bank?  Would the credit card receipt expose me to some unwonted legal liability?

I could probably get away with signing my name “Alfredo” in most instances.  But technically, “Alfredo” would be an alias.  If I ran into a particularly obnoxious prosecutor (“adversary”), he might conceivably charge me with fraud.

So, why take the chance?  Why not use my proper name?

Similarly, why not use the Christ’s proper name?

•  As for calling the Christ “Jesus” for the “sake of pronunciation,” my reader implied that the pronunciation of the word “Jesus” in English and the pronunciation of “Iesous” in Greek are virtually identical.

I doubt that’s true.  If I understand correctly, the letter “J” didn’t even exist until the 1400s and wasn’t widely used until the early 1600s.  It was probably the last letter added to the English alphabet.

Thus, the “divinely inspired” name “Iesous” existed for at least a thousand years before some genius translated “Iesous” into “Jesus”.

More, although I’m not the least bit familiar with the Greek language, I’ve heard that the “J” sound does not exist in the Greek language.

If that’s true, then it appears that the Greek pronunciation for “Iesous” may have been something like “Eye-ay-soos”—but never “Gee-zus” (Jesus).  If so, the idea that the “divinely inspired” name “Iesous” was changed to “Jesus” as a convenient pronunciation identical to the original Greek may be mistaken.

But, even if the word spelled “Jesus” is pronounced just like “Iesous,” is the correct pronunciation of “Jesus” the one spoken in English or in Spanish?

In English, the name spelled “Jesus” is pronounced “Gee-zus”.

In Spanish, the name spelled “Jesus” is pronounced “Hay-soos”.

Which one is correct?

I’d bet that the Spanish version is closer than the English version to the Greek pronunciation of the word “Iesous”—which my reader implicitly claim to be “divinely inspired”.  If so, why not pray to “Hay-soos” rather than “Gee-zus”?

Again, my point is that there is a name by which the Christ was commonly called and to which he replied.  What is so difficult about finding that name and its pronunciation in the original Hebrew and using it?

•  My reader claims that the Bible was “divinely inspired”.   OK—which “Bible”?  There are probably 20 to 50 versions of the Bible written in English, alone—and each differs from the others on significant points.  So, which version of the multitude of Bibles written in English is completely and “divinely inspired”?

Some might answer that the original texts of the New Testament, written in Greek, were “divinely inspired”.

OK–I’ll buy that possibility.  However, I will not buy the possibility that every subsequent translation of the Greek texts into Latin and/or then into English versions of the Bible are also completely “divinely-inspired”.

But even if the Greek texts were “divinely inspired” and the “divinely inspired” name for the Christ was “Iesous,” why don’t we call the Christ “Iesous”?  Why, do we instead call Him “Jesus”?

If the reader thinks the “divinely inspired” name for the Christ is “Iesous,” why does that reader ever use or even defend the name “Jesus”?  If he believes “Iesous” is divinely inspired, but still prefers to use “Jesus”–isn’t that an act of disrespect for the name that the reader, himself, implicitly claims to be “divinely inspired”?

How can anyone reasonably claim that: 1) “Iesous” is the “divinely inspired” name of the Christ; 2) the reader is a “Christian” (a sincere follower of the Christ); but 3) the reader still prefers to use a translation of the “divinely inspired” name rather than the exact, “divinely inspired” name?

I’m not condemning anyone’s name choice as sinful. The Christ may take no offense whatsoever.  But wouldn’t it be better . . . wouldn’t it show a greater degree of your respect for Him if we called Him by the name He actually used during His life (or even the “divinely inspired” name found in original Greek texts—which name the Christ presumably never used or even heard in his earthly life) rather than calling Him “Billy Bob” or even “Jesus”?

•  But finally,  there’s Acts 4:10-12 in which Peter declares,

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.  Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

If the Bible is true, then Acts 4:10-12 indicates that there is only one name in all of the earth “by which we must be saved”.   Although the original books of Acts was probably written in Greek, I doubt that Peter spoke in Greek—so I doubt that Peter actually used the name “Iesous” when he declared there was “no other name . . . by which we must be saved”.  And I’m certain that Peter did not speak in English (even for the sake of “pronunciation”) and say that the one, special name was “Jesus”.

More, given that the “divinely inspired” Bible had not yet been written in any language, Peter was probably not even aware that the Greek translation of these “Acts” would refer to “Iesous”.

So what name did Peter use when he claimed there is “no other name . . . by which we must be saved”?  It seems certain that Peter must’ve referred to the actual, proper name, in Hebrew by which the Christ was called and to which He responded to throughout his earthly life.

If the Bible is true, the Christ’s name is no game.  There is only one such name by which you must be saved.  That name is definitely not “Billy Bob” and it’s definitely not “Jesus” and it’s almost certainly not “Iesous”.  Thus, your personal salvation may depend on you finding and using the true and proper name of the Christ.  That particular name must be the name the Christ heard and used throughout his life.

Of course, according to Peter, there’s only one such name “by which you must be saved”.  If we seek salvation under that one true name, God must provide that salvation.

But, Peter did not say that God would definitely not grant us salvation under some alternative name.  If I want to pray in the name of “Billy Bob” and you want to pray in the name of “Jesus”—who knows?—maybe our Father YHWH ha Elohiym will, in His discretion, grant salvation to either of us, or even to both of us.

But why take that risk?

Why not discover and use the Christ’s proper name by which we “must be saved”?

•  There’s another possibility in all this.  If you’ve watched any of the old costume dramas about knights and ladies in medieval England, you’ve probably heard a messenger enter the castle or the king’s court and say, “I come in the name of Prince John!”  Here, the word “name” means “authority”.  I.e., “I come under the authority of Prince John!”

It’s entirely possible that when the Bible talks about the “name” of the Christ, it’s not really referring to the Christ’s specific “name” (like “Billy Bob” or “Jesus”) but instead, to the Christ’s authority.

If so, then the specific and true name of the Christ might not be critical.  So long as we pray in the authority of the Christ, it may make little or no difference what particular name we use.  Thus, I might be able to safely pray to “Billy Bob” tonight (so long as I do so under the “authority” of the Christ) and you can pray to “Jesus”.

But why take the chance?

Why pray to “Billy Bob” or to “Jesus” if there’s just one chance in 100 (or even one chance in billion) that it’s true that there’s “only one name . . . by which you must be saved”?

You are betting your personal salvation on your choice of whatever name you wish to use to refer to the Christ.  Why risk using any name other than the name by which the Christ was called and to which He responded throughout his earthly life?

That means that it’s only sensible that you find and use the Christ’s Hebrew name.


Posted by on May 8, 2013 in Bible


Tags: ,

74 responses to “In the name of “Jesus”?

  1. Christian Gains

    May 8, 2013 at 3:08 PM

    VERY WELL stated Alfred…

    • Dan Glasho

      May 8, 2013 at 9:32 PM

      In the scripture of Acts 4:10-12 in which Peter declares,

      “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …. for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
      New Testament Christians have not a clue that YHWH (Yahuweh) Himself said in the book of Joel 2:31-32 that in the end days “he that calleth upon the name of YHWH (Yahuweh) shall be saved (delivered). Peter contridicted YHWH. The KJV altered YHWH to the phrase “The Lord” in Joel, as well as in over 6,000 other instances in the Old Testament.

  2. Brother Thomas

    May 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM

    My thoughts exactly. Well, maybe not as thoughtfully and artfully written as you have been able to capture it here, however, I have been thinking about this self-same ?May I call it ‘play-on-words’? here since realizing that the common sense understanding of the words we commonly use in our everyday language do not hold up in court (quick aside here: Whose court?) or legalese, the language of some lawyers, BAR people and other ‘gods’ of the court (again: Whose court?).
    Finally, the exact name or authority or whatever is true and the way and the life:
    BLESSINGS AND thank you, Brother Thomas , not the ‘doubter’ ;-)

  3. Dude

    May 8, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    God knows the hearts of men. By using or saying “Jesus” instead of Yeshua or whatever other translation there is, should not be a salvation deal breaker. We are told that real deal breakers are breaking of the commandments. So if you don’t love God with your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself, does it matter what you do or say?
    Do what He commands and you won’t have to worry about minuscule grammar fluctuations. We are taught “Jesus” is the English translation so praying to some “Billy Bob” would naturally be ridiculous. God/Christ is not an idiot like we are. He knows our intent and what we mean.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 7:00 PM

      @ > you won’t have to worry about minuscule grammar fluctuations.
      Thanks Duke. It’s also called straining at knats & swallowing Camels or Elephants,AIN’T It,excuse me,isn’t it?

  4. Yartap

    May 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

    For lack of knowledge, we are destroyed. Thanks Alfredo! I mean Alfred.

  5. Anon4fun

    May 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM

    Adask said: “l, however, argue that calling the Christ by his proper name is more respectful than calling him by a Greek alias.”

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. The authors of the New Testament clearly did not share this opinion, however. They, to a man, referred to the Christ as “Iesous” in their writings. And they did not considered themselves to be using a disrespectful alias.

    Are you claiming that the New Testament authors, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, manifested less respect toward Christ than they would have if they listened Alfred Adask instead?

    Adask said: “But why take that chance?”

    Because the inspired authors of the New Testament took that “chance”.

    The bigger chance is following a lesser authority after scripture sets a precedence.

    Adask said: “If the Bible is true, then Acts 4:10-12 indicates that there is only one name in all of the earth “by which we must be saved”.”

    If you’re concerned about names being translations, then also be concerned about “name” being a translation.

    What is translated as “by the name of” uses the Greek word “onoma” (Strong’s 3686). The original text means “by the authority of” or “in the character of”. It is not a reference to a personal name.

    Adask said: ” Why risk using any name other than the name by which the Christ was called and to which He responded throughout his earthly life?”

    Why assume that the earthly name of Christ is the preferred one today, despite scriptural precedence to the contrary? People’s names are changed throughout the Bible, in both the old and new testaments.

    Since the New Testament was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and since the New Testament uses “Iesous” in reference to Christ, this could be another instance of a name change, or at least an alternate name being made available, by the will of God.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 7:18 PM

      @ >Are you claiming that the New Testament authors, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, manifested less respect toward Christ than they would have if they listened to Alfred Adask instead?
      Not just listening to,but agreeing with & abiding by.

      @> If you’re concerned about names being translations, then also be concerned about “name” being a translation.
      Stop it Anon4fun !!! We can’t have this kind of confusing us with the facts information.

      Anon4fun, I think from what I have seen happen to a couple of others on ALFIE’s Blog, you are about to be banned. I know I am.
      Very thought provoking message,Anon4fun, but remember, & palani will affirm, “Agree with ANY adversary.When “Jesus” said,GO TELL THAT FOX,is a good example. We cannot have anyone on this Alfie Blog that might understand anything better than Alfie-His-Self.

      • Anon4fun

        May 8, 2013 at 8:48 PM

        Les Fuchs: “We cannot have anyone on this Alfie Blog that might understand anything better than Alfie-His-Self.”

        It seems the understanding of the New Testament authors, who clearly and repeatedly preferred “Iesous” as the personal name of Christ, is also excluded – though we’re still waiting for Adask’s clarification of this apparent conflict between his opinion and theirs.

        No doubt Adask’s method of reconciling his preference with that of the New Testament authors will prove brilliant and surprising, when he gets around to sharing it.

      • Adask

        May 8, 2013 at 11:11 PM

        Why, “Les,” what a marvelous idea! Ban you both. Why didn’t I think of that?

        Well, from your lips to God’s ear (or, at least my ear)–hmm?

        On the one hand, I’ll miss you and Anon4Fun. You’re both intelligent and well-educated on some subjects. You’ve made comments this blog that were valuable.

        But, on the other hand, you’re both a couple of lightweights. If either one of you had anything important to say, you’d start you own blogs and write your own articles. Instead, you prefer to hang out here, and give us all the benefits of your criticisms and ridicule rather than articles. How many articles have either of you published? How many hours have either of you spent working to write something that might help some other people to see a “side” to an issue that they might not have seen before? Any?

        And despite your apparent to write real “articles” that anyone else would care to read, you apparently expect me to put up with your criticisms. I wouldn’t mind your criticisms if they were devoted only to the ideas expressed, but you guys have to turn your critiques into personality skirmishes. You and Anon both apparently like my work and ideas well enough to make your presence felt on this blog every day. And yet, you feel entitled to ridicule me. I am trying to think why I should work fairly hard at trying to host a blog that doesn’t pay me a dime, so some punks can hang out on my blog and treat me with contempt. I can’t think of a reason why I should.

        It might be different if either one of you used your own name on your criticisms. But you both hide behind fictional “names” like “Anon4Fun” and “Les Fuchs”. I’ve been involved in political activism for close to 25 years and every radio show I’ve hosted, every article I’ve written, and every opinion I’ve expressed has had my name attached. I haven’t tried to “hide out” in 25 years, and I’ve been warned more than once that some of things I’ve said or written could get me killed. I don’t know if those warnings were real or hyperbole, but there’s a chance that they were real–and I kept pushing as best I could.

        There are stories that the government has “Red List” and a “Blue List” for dissidents. Some are to be killed others are to “re-educated”. I don’t know if those stories are true or false, but they’re heard often enough to make me wonder. If there are such lists, do you think I even imagine that I’m not on one or the other? And does whatever fear I might feel compel me to be quiet, stop speaking, stop writing and “hunker down”?

        No so far.

        But what about you two “heroes of the revolution”? You’re so scared you won’t even your own names. Your so scared, that you won’t publish your own blog with your own articles for fear you might be identified. Apparently, you will not publish your own ideas in any forum where you can be identified and possibly placed on one of the dreaded “lists”. You make me laugh.

        Either one of you has enough brains and education to publish articles that might be insightful. But you don’t have the balls to do so. Some “heroes,” hmm? Time comes for your to die, and you will know that you’ve pissed your lives away living in fear and hiding from the risks of public exposure.

        I assume “Anon4Fun” means “Anonymous For Fun”. If so, that tag is deceptive. You ought to change it to something more honest like “Anon4Cowardice” or “Anon4YellowBelly” or even “Anon4Fear”.

        And, “Les,” how many times have you been thrown off this blog? Three, four? Every time you come back with a new lie–a new fictional name. What kind of a nut are you that you insist on insulting me and also insist on coming back, again and again? If you don’t like me or my blog, why come back? Have I become a father-figure to you? Are you trying to work out ancient problems with father by insulting/hanging-around me?

        Let’s make a clean break this time, “Les”. You go your way. I’ll stay here. Don’t come back. Don’t need you.

        Think of all the extra time you and “Anon4Fun” will have on your hands. It’ll be more than enough to write your own articles and publish your own blog. If you had balls enough to try, then you’d find out if you two really have anything to say that many others would bother to read. If you can attract an audience, it might be evidence that I’m making a mistake by bouncing your off my blog. But, if you can’t attract an audience, that will be evidence that, in the end, neither one of you has anything of value to say.

        It’s been fun.

        Write if you get work. In fact, write if you find the balls to stop hiding and use your own name. But don’t write to this blog, because been banned.

        Don’t forget to eat your vegetables.


      • Garrison

        May 9, 2013 at 11:05 AM

        I commend you brother Al for you candor, it is refreshing. I have been reading your blog for a while now and only comment here and there when the topic or the Spirit moves me to do so. You are dealing here with a situation that occurs everywhere that One tends to put his valuable knowledge out in the “Public” realm where you basically can’t “qualify” the recipient of such information, which should be done, that’s why I prefer the Private Realm myself but each has its well defined purpose. By being exposed as you do you will ultimately run into to those “agent provocateurs”, whom have existed from the beginning of time on this earth, from coming in and trying to disrupt the truth you are trying to give away freely just like the troubles the Apostles had in their day, no different. Nowadays you WILL have Zionists, ADL, and Southern Poverty Law adherents, among others, infiltrate our little peaceful societies, websites, blogs, what have you, and try to disseminate poison with disruption to try to divide and conquer the ones trying to gain knowledge of the truth, these are the ones, unbeknownst to themselves mostly, that they are carrying out the works of the Deceiver. May Yah help them discover for whom they are working for and turn themselves around.

        May Yah Bless your works and protect you brother AL.



      • Adask

        May 9, 2013 at 4:22 PM

        Thanks. Much appreciated. And may Yah bless you and yours, too.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 9:46 PM

      No doubt Adask’s method of reconciling his preference with that of the New Testament authors will prove brilliant…..”

      No doubt. Has it ever been otherwise? Certainly not. In all fairness,however,the truth is to each of us what we perceive to be truth. I wish we could all go to the Book of Genesis & start in Chapter 1 verse 1.That which is written in the 1st 2 verses would be going back & forth for at least a month. Anon4fun did you know when “God” created the earth he created it a waste,void & empty? Huh? Did you know that? It is beyond my understanding WHY he would create anything that IS void, empty,wasted,etc. To say it BECAME that way some time AFTER he created it, is unreasonable, illogical, ABSURD,etc.Right? or, wrong? Anyway don’t respond to this comment. I don’t want to change horses in the middle of the stream. I want to see & read the brilliant response coming forth on the current topic.

    • NDT

      May 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM

      “They, to a man, referred to the Christ as “Iesous” in their writings.”

      Assuming Greek primacy, which is unlikely since semitic people writing to other semites would most probably use a Semitic language like Aramaic, hence the Aramaic Peshitta.

  6. Huey Campbell

    May 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

    Brother Alfred,

    I believe you know the “truth” May the “God” who put you together in your mothers womb continue to bless you.

    • Adask

      May 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM

      Thank you.

      • Ironhead

        May 10, 2013 at 5:58 PM

        May 9, 2013 at 4:22 PM
        Per, “Thanks. Much appreciated. And may Yah bless you and yours, too.”

        Yah is defined as a way to express your dissatisfaction.
        An example of yah is when someone asks if you want to do something and you say OK even if you aren’t very excited. An example of yah is how you answer the question about whether someone is late when you are mad. used to express disgust, contempt, defiance, or derision. < Merriam-Webster dictionary

        There is a never ending tendency on the part of man, to present his own theories and opinions as matter worthy of attention. We are very tenacious for our erroneous ideas and idle opinions. We hold firmly to the traditions of men, and defend them as vigorously as if they were the veritable truth. The Messiah declared that every one that was of the truth would hear his voice. From what others say,& believe, I do not hear his voice,I just thought I did. Apparently some people have access to a Bible or Bibles that I do not & I have access to many, 26 translations to be exact.. Therefore if I ask someone, what is your source of the knowledge and he/she says,The Bible, this does not help. Please be specific about "which Bible." What Bible says the name is,YHWH ha Elohiym,i.e., with the "ha" & I do not mean like in "ha ha.heh heh." YHWH & Elohiym,< I am aware of,but not the ha, or,

        Yahushua,Yeshua,Yahshua,Yahuwah,Yahweh,Yehweh,Yehwah,Yahwah,Yehovah,Jehovah, & too many more to list.

  7. David Ewing

    May 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM

    Christ’s Hebrew name is Yeshua (aramaic) or Joshua in Scripture. I use Yeshua “Yay-shu-ah” personally because there are people called Joshua in Scripture and I think we should make the distinction.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 7:23 PM

      Better yet, We ALL need to learn & speak fluently,the Aramaic language. No doubt about that.

      • Adask

        May 8, 2013 at 10:06 PM

        I never suggested that everyone needs to learn to speak Aramaic or Hebrew. I have suggested, at times, that the people who were born and live in this country do need to learn English–but that’s as far as I go when it comes to recommending that folks learn a whole language. So far as I know, there’s nothing in the Bible that says we must all learn the language of Moses, or the language used by the Christ. But, Acts 4:10-12 does seem to say that there’s only one name under which you must be saved–the proper name of the Christ. If the Bible is true, those who insist on using the name of “Jesus” may be in big trouble. I know that some of you are very smart–probably even smarter than Peter and the people who wrote the book of Acts. Therefore, your salvation is already assured and you won’t be required to pay any attention to Acts 4:10-12. You can glibly assert that if God insists on only hearing those who say the Christ’s proper name, you don’t want to be in His silly ol’ heaven anyway.

        Ohh, really? You’re so effing smart that if God doesn’t run His heaven according to your standards, then you’ll Him and just not go, hmm? But if you’re not going to heaven, where will you go?

        Just in case the Bible is true, how hard would it be to discover and use the same Hebrew name that the Christ used while he was on this Earth? You don’t have to learn the whole Hebrew language. All you’ve got to do is learn one name that may consist of as little as three syllables–and that might be enough to guarantee your salvation. But, instead, you make fun of what might be your only shot at salvation.

        Let’s suppose using the Christ’s proper Hebrew name is unnecessary. Is there anything in scripture that suggests that using the Christ’s proper name would be wrong. Where’s the harm in using the Christ’s true name? Maybe Acts 4:10-12 is false or mistaken. Maybe you can use “Jesus” and I can use “Billy Bob”–if our hearts are in the right place. But, what if Acts 4:10-12 is true? Then everyone who has opted use the name “Jesus”–when they know or have reason to know that “Jesus” is not the proper name of the Christ–may be vulnerable to damnation.

        So, why not use the Hebrew name that the Christ used?

        Why set your heels and ridicule the warnings that are at least implied in Act 4:10-12? Why makes statements that claim you’d rather not go to heaven if heaven isn’t run according to your standards. Who th’ Hell do you think you are? Do think you can tell the “Boss” how to run his Heaven? Do you think your ego is so enormous that you can reasonably risk damnation rather than admit an obvious possibility that might even provide you with salvation?

        You’re an intelligent man and fairly well-educated. And yet you’re dumb enough to make a joke out of your own salvation.

        Y’know what the Bible says? It says, “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”. Insofar as you have previously written that you wouldn’t want to go to heaven if God insists that we use some particular name for the Christ or some such, you demonstrate that you do not fear God. If the Bible is true, your lack of fear of God is evidence that you have not yet even begun to acquire wisdom.

        If God says you have to crawl buck-nekkid over five miles of burning, busted glass, I’m good to go. I’ll count it as a blessing that getting into heaven is so easy.

        But, you, “Les,” make fun of what may be a simple requirement that you simply show enough respect for the Christ to Him by his proper name. You insist that you must be free to used the name “Jesus”–a name that the Christ probably never even heard, let alone used.

        You and I are not alike. I fear our Father YHWH ha Elohiym. You do not.

      • Anon4fun

        May 8, 2013 at 11:09 PM

        Adask said: “But, Acts 4:10-12 does seem to say that there’s only one name under which you must be saved–the proper name of the Christ.”

        I explained this already, but you did not respond. You are interested in giving out only correct information on this topic, right?

        Again, the word in the original text of Acts 4:10-12 is “onoma” (Strong’s 3686), which does not mean what you think it means.

        3686 ónoma – name; (figuratively) the manifestation or revelation of someone’s character, i.e. as distinguishing them from all others. Thus “praying in the name of Christ” means to pray as directed (authorized) by Him, bringing revelation that flows out of being in His presence.

        — Helps Ministries, Inc.

        The author of Acts is not referring to the proper name of Christ. Rather, he is talking about the authority or character of Christ as the only way to salvation. The correct meaning of this passage is repeated elsewhere in scripture, whereas your incorrect meaning occurs nowhere.

    • Andrew

      May 9, 2013 at 10:52 AM

      David is correct about the “Joshua” translation of the Greek “Iesous.” The Old Testament written in Hebrew was translated into Greek by 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria Egypt around 250 B.C. It is called, “The Septuagint” (abbreviated as LXX in many cases). In the Septuagint, the book titled (in English), “Joshua” is exactly the same spelling in Greek as “Iesous” rendered “Jesus” in the New Testament English. So the King James translators chose to render the same Greek word in two different ways, “Joshua” and “Jesus.” Some commentators claim it is because they started with Hebrew to render “Joshua” and started with Greek to render “Jesus.”

      (Download “” for free Bible translations and source texts of Greek and Hebrew, Strong’s Dictionary, etc. to check the facts I’m sharing with you here.)

      “Joshua” is a compound word “Jo” and “shua” (to use the English syllables) derived from both “Jehovah” whose contracted name is “Jah” in Psalm 68:4 – King James: “Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.” According to the Rotherham translation, the word “Jah” or “Yah” in Hebrew conjugated from the verb “Hayah” or “to be” in the first person singular simply means, “I AM.” That should be recognizable to Bible readers, because it is even translated like that in Exodus 3:14, “I AM That I AM…I AM hath sent me to you.”

      The following syllable “shua” means in short “salvation” or in the past tense “saved.” So in summary, the two syllables making the word “Jo-shua” in Hebrew simply meant “I AM-saved.” Therefore, whether rendered in Greek (Iesous) or English (Jesus), the meaning of accepting “Jesus” or Jah-shua, which I think Alfred is trying to promote, is accepting the belief, “I am saved.”

      An interesting note on this point is the name “Jehovah,” which some like Garrison recognized as the name of salvation, rather than “Jesus.” (cf. Acts 2:21 verses Joel 2:32). The name “Jehovah” is also two syllables (Exodus 6:3). The first rendered “Jah” or “Yah” as explained above means, “I AM.” The second is also a verb, “Hawah” or “to be,” is conjugated in the “Qal” conjugation as the third person present continuous “becoming,” according to Rotherham. So the name “Jehovah” in Hebrew meant, “I AM Becoming.” The question that arises from that rendering as an unfinished sentence: “I AM Becoming” what? I submit the completion of the sentence for the believers that Jesus is the incarnated “Word” of God made flesh (John 1:1, 14). So “I AM Becoming” (Man) in the form of Jesus seems the likely meaning, but I’ll leave that up to the faithful to decide.

      Incidentally, the four letters in Hebrew, Yod, Hey, Wah, Hey,- (YHWH) were stacked on top of each other in the Kabbala, not just written from right to left. The result by doing so is the image of a “man” with the head being “Yod”, the shoulders and arms being “Hey.” The heart and torso being “Wah.” The hips and legs being again, “Hey.” (See for example.) So again, the “meaning” is confirmed in quite a different way that what “Yahweh” was “becoming” is “Man” in the person of Jesus, as Jesus himself claimed in John 14:9, “…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” I admit that there are optional meanings possible, such as, “I AM Becoming” Lord, which would imply he is striving to become supreme, verses, simply manifesting his supremacy in flesh as a Man. Again, I will leave it to the faithful to decide.

      What this says to me is, those who call upon the name of the “LORD” (Yahweh), are making a claim “I am” to “become” a godly “Man.” Those who call upon the name of “Jesus” (Yahshua), are making a profession of faith that “I am” “saved” from being a lesser “man” than I was created to be.

      What is more important, the “sound,” the “symbol”…or the “meaning” of the sounds and symbols?

      Alfred is also correct that the letter “J” did not even exist until 1539 A.D. (See Oxford Dictionary). So some newer translations, like the New King James render “Jah” in Ps. 68:4 as “Yah,” using the “Y” for the consonant rather than “J.” But again, what is more important? What you say…or what you mean.

      There is a “Jesus” who lives in Baja Mexico, “Jesus of Baja,” who has a boat and three children. Is that the “Jesus” whom people are referring to for their “salvation”? Or is it “Jesus of Nazareth,” as Al points to in the book of Acts? Relying upon the “name” as a “sound” rather than its “meaning” is an old Middle Eastern belief in “magic” that the actual “enunciation” holds the power to summon a deity or demon or angel. Each person who has had an “experience” of power to transform their life into a “godly” man by calling on the name of “Jesus” rather than “Yahweh” or “Yahshua” etc, knows the “sound” is not as important or necessary to access the power to change your life. Just a thought that “magic words” are not as important as “miracle power” experienced by the longing and cry of the heart for a new life.

      • Ironhead

        May 11, 2013 at 6:55 PM

        Andrew says,The following syllable “shua” means in short “salvation” Jesus” or Jah-shua, which I think Alfred is trying to promote,…” I think Alfred is promoting Christ is not God. Apparently most every-body agrees as I have yet to see anyone else saying otherwise. However, I do see where a few say none of their response OR only part of it went through,was posted, accepted, etc.SO, who knows? Something out of the ordinary ( I think), is happening on this blog. I KNOW I tried to submit an earlier response & NONE of it was accepted,i.e., was not allowed, but definitely did not post. I wonder why? If the leader of this blog does not know, who does? This is obviously causing a few good men to be booted off too.

  8. Michael

    May 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM

    I was in the cross-fire of a “christian” (tyrannical bible thumping mother) family… whereby the one “buying into the system” (numbers, job, employing FBRN’s) to independently make ends meet, said ” it is not what you call him, it is what is in your heart” … despite the tyranny that we are ‘subjects’ of, what she said,sums it up!

    Render unto Ceasar’s what is Ceasar’)… an open discussion.

  9. rl

    May 8, 2013 at 5:45 PM

    If you strain at a gnat and swollow a camel, you will miss it all. First you have already disqualified yourself from salvation if you don’t believe that Yeshua, or Jesus is God incarnate. He has to have the power to and authority to save you from your sins. So before you get hung up on spelling his name correctly, figure out whether he is the Word of God who became flesh, oops another description of who he is. This is a FAITH based belief, and it is that way for a reason. You are saved by grace through FAITH not of WORKS, lest any man boast. (I am smarter, better, or more deserving than you). Now Yeshua is called, “the lamb of God”,” the Good shepherd”,” the way, the truth and the life”, “The Son of God, The Son of man, the bread of life”. So first before you call on his name you must believe on who he is, and what he has the power to do. When you do that, your heart(soul) will call out his name and he will hear you from heaven, his Spirit will commune with yours and you will have a name,written in the book of life. He will know it and he will save you! He is God not some petty human. You are trying to bring God down to our level. He knew you before you were born, the hairs on your head are numbered, he has named the stars of heaven. You don’t think he will know a sincere soul when he hears it?

    • Chosen one

      May 8, 2013 at 6:47 PM

      The Messiah come in the flesh is indeed God the creator of all. The rest of the verse you were referring to in Ephesians 2 says this faith is not of yourselves, it is a gift from God. Therefore it is not a work of man, but has to be given by God to those who were chosen in Him since before the creation of the world. This is spelled out in the first chapter of Ephesians (among other places).

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 7:36 PM

      To rl
      Re: >Jesus is God incarnate.
      Last I heard & saw, Alfred Adask is not “persuaded” that this is true,i.e.,Jesus is God incarnate. You are aware of this aren’t you,rl,AND

      @ > You don’t think he will know a sincere soul when he hears it?
      According to “others” No!! not unless we pronounce the name right.Pronounce the name or what you say is in vain. Ain’t that a shame?

  10. Anthony Clifton

    May 8, 2013 at 5:46 PM

    well stated, and perhaps a small contribution in order of priority for advancing the Pure language Zepaniah 3:9 references…

    personally I find it encouraging that someone cares enough to share this and prays earnestly

    May the Almighty and the returning King grant you peace

  11. Joe

    May 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    I reason that when “Iesous” was written in the Greek, it was a transliteration of how the name sounded when spoken in Aramaic. So regardless of how it was written in Hebrew, it sounds like “Eye-a-soos” when spoken. That said, if you know Him, and you command an unclean spirit “in the name of Jesus,” I know from experience that said spirit knows in whose authority you are acting and will obey just as if the Lord Himself had given the command.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 7:41 PM

      May 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM
      THANK YOU !!! I KNOW this is TRUE ALSO & can give many examples but they would not be believed.

  12. NDT

    May 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM

    If the Bible is true, then Acts 4:10-12 indicates that there is only one name in all of the earth “by which we must be saved”.

    Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] El, and [there is] none else.
    I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
    Surely, shall [one] say, in YHWH have I righteousness and strength: [even] to him shall [men] come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
    Isa 45:22-24

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 7:49 PM

      HEY NDT !!!
      Supp? How is YHWH pronounced, in English? Is praying in English sufficient or do I need to learn another language?

      • NDT

        May 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM

        Hey Dude.

        It’s a Hebrew word, the English letters are a clue as to how it is pronounced. There are many opinions about it, but the best argument I’ve seen is that it is correctly pronounced like the Hebrew word YHWDH (translated in English as Judah), but of course without the D. There are three syllables, yeh, hu, and wah (stressed).

        While it’s probably not that important what language you pray in, learning old Hebrew has other benefits.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 9:55 PM

      @ >It’s a Hebrew word,
      Wow !! Thanks NDT. I never knew until now that each alphabet “letter”, e.g. A,B.C, is a word. So, NOW, NDT, is YHWH ONE word or 4 words? Thanks,Dude. U cool 2.

      • NDT

        May 8, 2013 at 10:50 PM

        In Hebrew each letter can be represented as word, eg aleph beyt gimmel dalet etc. The Hebrew word YHWH is also called the tetgrammaton, meaning “four letters”. In normal use it’s just one word.

  13. Garrison

    May 8, 2013 at 7:44 PM

    The Messiah said He came in His Father’s name (Yahweh) Yah is the short version as in Halleluyah and mostly ALL the Prophets carried the family name too (..iah is pronounced yah, e.g. Isayah, Jeremyah, Obadyah, Zecharyah, etc.) it is a family name which Yahshua (which means Yahweh is salvation) carried with him. When you say Yahshua you are really saying Yahweh save me. “Whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved” (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13) and that IS Yahshua. I am going to disagree with most of you because in my studies I have come to know from much of my research that the Greek Scriptures were translations from the Hebrew in which the original Hebrew Scriptures were burned so to hide the name and the truth from us, and yes, scriptures do say we are to be immersed (baptized) into the “Name” that’s when you also become a brother with the Messiah and bear the testimony to the family name. Think of it this way, if you were to know the code word (name) to get into the Wedding Feast/Party and it bore ONLY one Name to get in I would make absolutely sure that I had the right name so I could get in wouldn’t you? All of us should know by now that the deceiver/the Devil/Lucifer uses the trick/deception, a bastardization of the name of us here on earth by giving us a Strawman Name and he does so too with the Messiah’s name, he loves to mess with names and if you use those messed up Strawman names you too will get in trouble. Jesus, Iesous, and others are ALL Strawman Names of the True Messiah given to us through the Devils minions the copyists of Scripture. Yahshua is his name which the Apostles used to cast out demons and do all the wonderful miracles in the name and under the authority of Yahshua Messiah which carries the authority from his Father Yahweh the Patriarch of the Name which ALL his Sons & Daughters must come to know to be considered true sons & daughters of Him. YOU must know WHO you ARE and where you come from, right? and under what authority and whom do you serve, right? It IS the Name, something so simple but so deceptive when you manipulate it to confuse people, that is why He only has ONE Name so NOT to confuse us since the devil is the author of confusion and he himself (the Devil) has many many names, to confuse us. Yahshua IS the Messiah and the Son of the Most High authority Yahweh, there is NO confusion once you are immersed into that truth, it’s up to you whether you accept the truth or not and whether you will be at that Great Wedding Feast when He arrives to bring back a most Perfect Government to this fine earth of ours, and I pray to see you all there….

    Shalom my brothers,


    • Adask

      May 8, 2013 at 9:17 PM

      Thank you.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM

      @ > Whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved”

      Apparently whosoever does not literally mean whosoever or this includes Satan. Also, saved from what? Also, why do honest questions make “some” people angry?

      • Ironhead

        May 10, 2013 at 7:50 PM

        Re: The Messiah said He came in His Father’s name

        Why can this not mean,in & by the authority of, as those who arrest some of us do, unlawfully, but say they do so “in the name of the law?” What, to you,does, “in the name of the law mean? “

      • Ironhead

        May 10, 2013 at 7:55 PM

        Re: > “Apparently whosoever does not literally mean whosoever or this includes Satan.”
        Makes sense to me, Les

    • NDT

      May 8, 2013 at 11:00 PM

      “Whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved” (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13)”

      Joel uses the proper name, but Acts and Romans do not, they use a title:

      And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (YHWH) shall be delivered
      Joel 2:32, KJV

      And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (kyrios) shall be saved.
      Acts 2:21, KJV

      For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (kyrios) shall be saved.
      Romans 10:13, KJV

      1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
      a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
      1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
      2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
      b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
      c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

      For Romans, kyrios refers to the state, the Roman emporer.

      • Garrison

        May 9, 2013 at 12:30 AM

        No disrespect, but the mistake is in allowing yourself to take the mistransliteration of the KJV to heart, the KJV mistransliterates ALL the proper names and coverts them into pagan titles throughout the whole book including Joel, my Bible does not use the pagan titles it has the proper names where they are suppose to be, that is the whole problem we face. If they would have left the original names intact when they converted the Scriptures into a common tongue then we wouldn’t have all these people debating the name issue now would we? The original Hebrew Scriptures were destroyed so all we had left was the pagan adulterated versions keeping the truth we needed for salvation out of it.The Devils copyists purposely kept the Holy Names out of Scripture for this exact purpose, “CONFUSION” and we know who the author of confusion and chaos is, that’s why we are having this debate in the first place, Satan is keeping the truth away from us and letting us fight over the deceptions that are given us. That very thing is occurring in much abundance in many areas of life these days, worship, family, law, politics, and so-called government, amongst many others. We are definitely in the End Times, that is why we must share and receive with an open mind then validate for oneself. If we want truth then we have to seek diligently and pray and ask for the truth to be given to us and it will. We are the ones who will pay for the choices we make today. It is now the time of the separation of the goats & the sheep, the wheat & the tares, and where the tares will be pulled up and thrown into the pit and burned so that the meek, mild, and righteous shall inherit the good earth. That is why the Messiah Yahshua must come to establish the righteous government of heaven here on earth and will rule with and iron fist so that evil will be kept out. Yah speed and may Yah Bless us all!



      • NDT

        May 9, 2013 at 1:24 AM

        Shalom Garrison,

        Yes, I agree the mistake is in focusing on the exterior form instead of the intangible meaning.

        I find it interesting that there is a difference in meaning between LORD and Lord. You could use this argument to demand that any written document that makes representations about you used your name in its proper form so as to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity. The ambiguity could result in you being represented as an entity with corporate status rather than a man with actual rights. Such misrepresentation would legally be libel. This would be expected of admiralty jurisdiction, which depends on the existence of a libellant.

      • Garrison

        May 9, 2013 at 9:03 AM

        Yes, I am in agreement with you here. As one can see the Evil One plays the same game with the Holy Name in Scripture (LORD/Yahweh) as he does with our names John Doe/JOHN DOE (strawman) in law/court of his government here & now. Once you can “see” the little Devil’s deception you then can better understand how he uses or applies his tricks so to better defend yourself and or the truth in any given situation or test. Once his methods are understood then we have the hard task of exposing those methods to the populace, wherein the populace has a hard time seeing the truth you are trying to expose amongst the heavy programing/deception of the Devil’s lie. We have the hard task of doing so just like the Apostles had back in the day of the Messiah, (and at times we can expect death/loss too) we are at constant war as the Messiah said, He did not come to bring peace (this time) but to bring a sword/war and that is exactly what you get when you bring the truth (a sword) out when everybody is believing in the great lie, you get a war or warring. Truth vs. Lie. It will not end until the Messiah brings forth Righteous Government upon this earth, but we have to endure to the end and we will be saved/delivered from it. Fight the Good fight with the armor of protection on.

        Shalom my brother,

        “Garrison Michael”

      • NDT

        May 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM

        Shalom Garrison,

        You are literally accurate when you refer to the devil, as the word devil, from diablos, means slanderer, and the only difference between a libellant and a slanderer is that the misrepresentation takes a written form rather than an oral one.

        Your reference to the armour of protection leads to another issue:

        Where Isaiah speaks of vengeance and zeal, Paul speaks of truth
        Isaiah 59
        17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance [for] clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.
        Ephesians 6
        14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

        Where the Psalmist speaks of truth, Paul speaks of faith.
        Psalms 91
        4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth [shall be thy] shield and buckler.
        Ephesians 6
        16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

        Where Isaiah speaks of the Spirit lifting a standard, Paul speaks of the sword of the Spirit. Lifting a standard means to put to flight, which contrasts with a sword as an offensive weapon.
        Ephesians 6
        17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
        Isaiah 59
        19 So shall they fear the name of YHWH from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of YHWH shall lift up a standard against him.

        In Paul’s version, many of the meanings are rearranged, and Paul substitutes vengeance and zeal with faith.

  14. James Hayman

    May 8, 2013 at 8:01 PM

    Keith Johnson & Nehemia Gordon have written a book “His hallowed Name Revealed Again” after much research have determined that the proper pronunciation of YHWH is transliterated as Yehovah with the accent on the last syllable. There is a web site to order the book I think it is Keith Johnson has another web page that has a link if I’m wrong about the first link. Lots of interesting info from Nehemia & Keith. Jim

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 10:07 PM

      @ >Keith Johnson & Nehemia Gordon have written a book “His hallowed Name Revealed Again”
      The thought occurred about all the people who have died before Keith Johnson & Nehemia Gordon wrote the book revealing this knowledge. What about them? No wonder “God’s” nickname is, LUCKY

  15. Arc

    May 8, 2013 at 8:01 PM

    Jesus/Yeshua/ect.. Im always come to across road when i hear Jesus is God…When in scripture he say i come to do the will of my father/ or when he prayed did he pray to himself/ and as the son of GOD arent we all sons and daughters of GOD. I guess my question is who truly was Esus a man chosen by GOD?/ or GOD in flesh.. and if the fathers IN heaven then Is GOD/as im in my home the is the father all things or an not in heaven but is heaven aka Ouranos/ in etomology/ sorry just lookin for true answer i guess to many questions..good article..Godbless

  16. Arc

    May 8, 2013 at 9:06 PM

    Scripture says Iron sharpens Iron/ Man sharpens Man, so we all have a piece of the Key, or knowledge to help eachother better understand or/ Overstand…the lies an deceit the enemy has come to sow among us.. if i can help another i will try to sharpen as I would humbly receive an ask the All mighty for dicernment.. let us view eacthothers points with an open heart as to why my brother or sister looks at it that way so we all can be better servants as one mind n body ..

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 10:18 PM

      Arc, Shalom,
      There was a previous thread where “The Messiah” said what is necessary / required to inherit “eternal life.” Not very many comments on that thread, however. It’s more important to know about the name than knowing about what is required about inheriting eternal life? Apparently so.

  17. Dan Glasho

    May 8, 2013 at 9:31 PM

    Alfred; In the scripture of Acts 4:10-12 in which Peter declares,

    “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …. for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
    New Testament Christians have not a clue that YHWH (Yahuweh) Himself said in the book of Joel 2:31-32 that in the end days “he that calleth upon the name of YHWH (Yahuweh) shall be saved (delivered). Peter contridicted YHWH. The KJV altered YHWH to the phrase “The Lord” in Joel, as well as in over 6,000 other instances in the Old Testament.

    • NDT

      May 8, 2013 at 11:45 PM

      Also, Paul wrote in Romans that those who call upon the name of kurios (owner, master) would be saved. The master of a Roman citizen is the state or the emporer.

      The identity of the kurios is significant for human beings (Cicero’s homo humanus).

      A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

      • Ironhead

        May 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM

        NDT,& “OTHERS”
        > “Also, Paul wrote in Romans that those who call upon the name of kurios (owner, master)…..”

        NDT,I’m curious. Do I start my prayer by saying, Kurious,I ask of YOU,Kurious? If so, how is “kurious” pronounced? It seems it must be pronounced right or that too is a waste. Here is something else I have seriously thought about. I wonder how anyone can “study” the Bible and come to the conclusion that “God” would leave people floundering in the darkness of error and apostasy for over 1,800 years, only to finally reveal Himself & his name to ANY one so called “True Church.” Nevertheless, that is what is taught by ALL of the so called True Churches. It’s only been around 200 years that so many are saying the “true church & name” have been “rediscovered” but each one claims to be the one & only true church. If this is true, what of the “others” that have lived & died not having access to this critical & necessary to be “saved” information? I guess they have to be written off as collateral damage The true church has always existed. It’s just that, obviously very few have found it. This is not saying that I have found it,as some will presume,so don’t be upset with me, at least yet.

  18. Gary

    May 8, 2013 at 10:30 PM

    Hello Al:

    Our Christ spoke Estrangelo Aramaic.

    I believe he knows who he is, as well as who he isn’t. He understood culture then and understands culture today. According to scripture, he is seated at the right hand of his and our God. ( the right hand is the hand of might and power ). Being at the right hand of God, he (Jesus Christ) makes intercession for us according to scripture. When we need it, and when we call upon the name of Christ Jesus, he stands up for us.

    He is my lord and savior. Don’t you think it interesting, that as Christians, we have the same LORD, the same Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ? ( by using the word Christians I am speaking of those of us who have confessed him as lord and believed that God raised him from the dead) The One we call “Father” is the same One Jesus Christ calls “Father”. Scripture exhorts us to pray to the same God that Jesus Christ prayed to.

    Jesus Christ is Not God. He is the only begotten son of God and the first-born among many brethren according to scripture. He is my lord and savior, and my brother according to scripture.
    Finally, I don’t read anywhere in scripture where we Christians are instructed to pray to Jesus, and I don’t. When I pray, as I’ve read in the Word, I pray to my Heavenly Father and thank Him in the name of Jesus Christ.

    I commend you for presenting this subject on your blog.

    • Ironhead

      May 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

      Per, >Our Christ spoke Estrangelo Aramaic.
      Not only did Christ speak Aramaic, he spoke ALL other languages needed / necessary
      The Apostles also spoke in every known language necessary to convey the message they were giving. Common sense should confirm this. There are scriptures confirming this too.

  19. Les Fuchs

    May 8, 2013 at 10:30 PM

    @ > I never suggested that everyone needs to learn to speak Aramaic or Hebrew….

    I don’t recall anyone saying you did say this. I replied to David Ewing re: his comment re: Aramaic.

  20. bandit

    May 9, 2013 at 1:26 AM

    here is something i stumbled upon in my search for knowledge. strange how it is set out and stranger still, it makes a certain type of sense. Ezekiel (18:20) reads:

    “The soul who sins is the one who will die. the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

  21. Michael

    May 9, 2013 at 2:04 AM

    It seems to me that Lex and Anon make some good points, but their style is abusive and antagonistic. That’s what I object to. And, I suspect that’s what bothers Al, too. State your argument and let logic persuade others to your position. The mocking tone is unhelpful.

    • Adask

      May 9, 2013 at 2:21 AM

      Exactly. I see no reason to spend my time hosting this blog at my own expense and then be rewarded by some punks who like the blog enough to visit every day, but still feel entitled to insult me. If you want to come in my house, fine. If you want to come in my house and then piss on my floor, don’t expect to be invited back.

      • Michael

        May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM

        Is it the childish taunting/mocking we experienced in elementary school? Probably. They are doing it just to see you react.

      • Anon4fun

        May 9, 2013 at 8:40 AM

        Now I’m certain you are confusing me with someone else. This is the only moniker under which I have posted on this blog.

        When you previously made comments about people causing trouble and then returning under a different name, I had no idea you were talking about me.

        Exactly where have I ever insulted you? If you try to find examples, you will see that you are mistaken about this.

        Please respond!

      • Michael

        May 9, 2013 at 3:16 PM

        Anon wrote:

        “No doubt Adask’s method of reconciling his preference with that of the New Testament authors will prove brilliant and surprising, when he gets around to sharing it.”

        I am not Al, but I will answer: I think your post was mocking. Not nearly as rude as Les, but still rude. Your argument was convincing on its own, but you closed with the snide comment. Just be nice.

      • Anthony Clifton

        May 9, 2013 at 2:17 PM

        as a minor clarification, it seems that the scripture in Acts necessarily eliminates all Anti-christ{s} {Christ = Messiah for the children of Israel & Mankind} from “salvation”…including “proselytes” to the so-called “traditions of the elders” – “oral traditions” that negated – overturned – “YHWH’s “Law”…

        and further confirms that the actual descendents of the Children of Israel

        {Christian Nations/Christian People}

        have an innate “fear of the Almighty” as a quality for attaining knowledege leading to wisdom…

        anti-Christ{s} being “hypocrites”, Lying Murderers….creatures of instinct, brutal beasts

        As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

        Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne

        some people are taught to Hate Jesus as part of their “religion”…which is why they are “Proselytes”

        Two fold the child of hell….mockers, scoffers & blasphemers…Haters of Truth & Justice

      • Matthew

        May 13, 2013 at 11:52 AM

        @Michael “I am not Al, but I will answer: I think your post was mocking. Not nearly as rude as Les, but still rude.”


        I am not Anon, but where I come from “brilliant and surprising” is considered a compliment.

        Nice drama, anyway.

  22. bandit

    May 9, 2013 at 5:21 AM

    i supply two sites explaining the trappings that create hell as described by Dante and further illustrated by Blake. Be aware of the enticements provided upon the world wide web and its only defense in keeping close to redemption.

  23. Peg-Powers

    May 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM

    I love Gary’s reply about praying to “our Father in the name of [J] oshua, the Son”. My life totally changed the day I believed that particular instruction! I had attended “church” for 25 years and never heard a “minister” stress this important concept. I don’t think they had a clue; but I learned the truth eventually.

    The tangible result to authentic/correct prayer is POWER. Just sit back and watch our Father work and move and intervene! If you are not yet witnessing His power and intervention when you pray, it is not too late. Pray correctly. Pray right. Also, as a child, I attended several meetings of the Oral Roberts Crusade. Thousands were in that auditorium. I sat close night after night and SAW goiters disappear, the lame walked, and the stuttering tongues ceased their stutter (a personal friend). The power still exists today.

    In 1951, along with all the other first-grade children, I received a Gideon New Testament at school (a practice banned long ago by Guvco). I kept that little red book most of my life. In Matthew 1:21 it read: “….thou shalt call his name JESUS (Joshua): for he shall save….”. The TRUTH was there.

    Let all good men come to the knowledge of the TRUTH and love one another in unity of spirit.

  24. Doug

    May 10, 2013 at 5:51 AM

    Sometimes I try to understand the stubborness of man. (Especially white Christians). If any group could be accused of “If you strain at a gnat and swollow a camel” it’s gotta be the white Christian patriot community.

    Personally, I am so awestruck by the miraculous beauty and magnificence of the known universe that my own ignorance must be readily admitted and to argue endlessly about who is more knowledgeable seems hilarious since we’re all without knowledge of any real magnitude.

    A scripture about all men being liars provoked me to consider why all men have to be liars in God’s (Yah’s) eyes … my determination was that all men have to be liars because they simply aren’t aware of the total truth … men, even the most honest, are liars out of IGNORANCE. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to Yahweh !

    That’s just my opinion.

    • Ironhead

      May 10, 2013 at 4:16 PM

      Per,”That’s just my opinion.”
      I think it is the “Eternal God’s” opinion too !! I appreciate ALL of your opinions,Doug. I know whose name you come in the authority of, I just don’t know like many others how to spell it or pronounce it.

  25. bandit

    May 10, 2013 at 7:08 AM

    politic is another trap that leads to eternal damnation. the very word suggests a single view point as in “pole”

    • Ironhead

      May 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM

      per “pole”
      I would not touch that with a 20 ft.pole much less a 10.

  26. Shayne

    May 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM

    It doesn’t appear that anyone has touched on Luke 23:38 & John 19:20 (KJB). The superscription was written in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, or written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin if you prefer the verse in John. Do you think His name was pronounced the same or differently when being read in the three different languages when spoken at that particular time? Do you think we even pronounce the same English letters the same today as 400/600 years ago? How were the Latin characters pronounced 2000 years ago compared to today? How can we really know?

  27. Harry

    May 19, 2013 at 10:36 AM

    As for me when I pray I pray to my or our Father who is in Heaven and leave it at that.

    I was never on a first name basis with my earthly father and I surely am not on a first name basis with my heavenly Father. If my brother is the King of kings and Lord of lords then I doubt I should be on a first name basis with him as well.

    When I complete my prayer I indicate to my Father in Heaven that I have come boldly to the Throne of Grace in my prayer in the name (or under the authority) of His Son (my LORD and Savior) who has instructed me that when I pray this is the way to do it (i.e. the Lord’s Prayer).

    By doing this I avoid offending anyone in so far as the name game is concerned.

    In the end my hope rests entirly on the finished work of our Hevenly Father’s Son and the fact that His Spirit testifies to my spirit that I am a son of our Hevenly Father who as such in this Father/son relationship may now come boldly to the Throne of Grace in prayer when we come through His Son. The Holy Spirit is my continuing Conforter.

    After all I have not chosen Him, He has chosen me and those in whom He has begun a good work (we are told) are exactly those He is willing and able to carry this good work out to completion, in spite of our ignorance unbelief at times. Therefore, in the end I KNOW that everything I say and do will find its perfect place in my Hevenly Father’s PERFECT plan, with or without my approval. Father I believe, help thou me in my unbelief and may your Kingdom come in all of the earh as it presently is in Heaven. So be it.

    • Brother Thomas

      May 19, 2013 at 11:22 AM

      you appear to have covered all the bases in your comment here, Harry. One thing I do note though is the (lack of) ‘there is only ONE NAME in heaven & earth by which man may be saved’ If that is true then that ‘NAME’ , whatever it is, would probably be important/ would definitely be important/would be imperative to know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s