Who knew there was another name “under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"?

clefty

Phoron
Another topical thread birthed from the shout box.

What does it mean when names are changed?

Our very own Doc Alan Ya’aqov II posted this article in the SB:

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/jack-smith-trump-antisemitism/

and highlighted this for us: "little bit of history—America’s and Trump’s—makes things considerably less mysterious. Any Jew of a certain age recognizes Trump’s trope as a classic anti-Semitic slur, one dating back to Henry Ford and probably before."

Apparently names...and names changing...have remained important even in the secular world for a long time... dating back to Ford and "probably before".

So I shouted back:

"yeah…a little before…even Jesus had His name changed to sound less jooish…who knew there was another name “under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Which was given prompt reaction TARD! Reactions :p Petr

clefty: what's so "tard" about that Cephas?" I asked using his Aramaic name as a reminder that even Pete "the first pope" was renamed from Simon.

That got a prompt response too... TARD! Reactions :p piscamaniac

I then asked:

clefty: Say wut Cephas? Same “trick” used with Paul? Yeah you right dude…Saul to Paul who we all know was twisted to further divorce from anything jooish…

and yet again a prompt TARD! Reactions :p Petr

And so I thought it interesting enough for a thread. Obviously inspiring responses already...

After all Peter was שִׁמְעוֹן (Shim'on) meaning "hearing, listening" before he became Petr...

Here's a good starter pack article:


"But what about the meaning of the name? Those who argue in favor of the superiority of the name Yeshua insist that the Hebrew form means “salvation” whereas the Greek form is meaningless. This is true, and I believe every Christian should know the name of Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic means “salvation.” However, Peter-Petros-Pietro-Pierre-Pedro means “rock” only in the Greek language. It is meaningless in the others; yet none of us seems bothered by this problem, and no one insists on a consistent, universal pronunciation as Petros."

halleluYah...indeed He saves...through His Son...

As for names and who is Who even poor King Jimmy got it wrong with all his big brained wordsmiths:

For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. (Hebrews 4:8 KJV)

For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. (Hebrews 4:8 NIV)


and also

Acts 7:45 King James Bible
"Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;"

Awwww come on Jimmy you "supplanter"!!

Maybe if this King Ya’aqov had recalled his own name came from an OT origin he might have not messed this up so badly?

Joshua 22:4-5, 23:1,6 We see that Joshua did speak of a general rest given to Israel and then he still commanded that the commandments given at Sinai be kept which included that day of rest even for the "strangers and donkeys"

The Sabbatismos of Heb. 4:9 a greek hebrew hyphenated word since the Greeks had their own word for Saturday...but a Hebrew understanding was necessary.

That so much is lost in translation is the focus of this thread.


Here's another interesting point:

Daniel 1:3-7
The king ordered Ashpenaz, the chief of his court officials, to bring some of the Israelites from the royal family and from the nobility - young men without any physical defect, good-looking, suitable for instruction in all wisdom, knowledgeable, perceptive, and capable of serving in the king’s palace - and to teach them the Chaldean language and literature. The king assigned them daily provisions from the royal food and from the wine that he drank. They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to serve in the king’s court. Among them, from the descendants of Judah, were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The chief official gave them other names: he gave the name Belteshazzar to Daniel, Shadrach to Hananiah, Meshach to Mishael, and Abednego to Azariah.

Why the name changes? What made the boys’ Hebrew names unacceptable to the Babylonians? The meaning of their Hebrew names centered on the one true God: Daniel – God is my judge; Hananiah – Yah has been gracious; Mishael – who is what God is; Azariah – Yah has helped.

Contrast that to their “new” names whose meanings centered on several false Babylonian gods: Beltashazzar – Bel will protect; Shadrach – inspired of Aku; Meshach – belonging to Aku; Abednego – servant of Nego.


Perhaps He meant it when He reminded His "thou dost not take My Name in vain" from Sinai to the promised land where He would choose a place for it...
 
Last edited:
None of your incoherent ramblings have anything to do with the original article. The whole point of the article (which was written by a Jew) is that 'Smith' is not his real name. The author keeps the waters murky as to whether or not Jack Smith is Jewish but in all likelihood he is, otherwise he would have concluded the article with the slam dunk ....and he's not even Jewish, so Trump is crazy, or something along those lines. ( BTW, my Jewdar goes off when I see JS's face.)

Fun fact: The Man who appointed Jack Smith changed his name too. Merrick Garland is not his real name. It's Moishe Garfinkel.

I used to know a Jewish woman whose family changed their name to 'Smith' so they could fully assimilate into society. Other Jews change their names with more nefarious intents, which is what the article was dancing around about.
 

clefty

Phoron
None of your incoherent ramblings have anything to do with the original article. The whole point of the article (which was written by a Jew) is that 'Smith' is not his real name. The author keeps the waters murky as to whether or not Jack Smith is Jewish but in all likelihood he is, otherwise he would have concluded the article with the slam dunk ....and he's not even Jewish, so Trump is crazy, or something along those lines. ( BTW, my Jewdar goes off when I see JS's face.)

Fun fact: The Man who appointed Jack Smith changed his name too. Merrick Garland is not his real name. It's Moishe Garfinkel.

I used to know a Jewish woman whose family changed their name to 'Smith' so they could fully assimilate into society. Other Jews change their names with more nefarious intents, which is what the article was dancing around about.

yeah...understood all that...Doc Ya’aqov...

and so I thought I'd discuss where these modern name changing joos got that idea from...I mean they just thought of it right?

you know...to be more assimilated...clever joos finally realizing a non jooish sounding name would be more readily accepted by your types...and now how dare the goyim like Trump know...oy vey!

I guess I could have started a thread in "history" or "politics" but decided on "religion" as some of these name changes kinda lose their meaning...and thus beyond history or polytrickin' it tweaks da theology ya dig?

I mean a King Jimmy or a Dr James eating pork is nothing new...but a cat named Ya'aqov?...Duuude...

Kinda like when and WHY Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah declined the king's food and wine and beat Babylon...hint: it's in their name

But you don't wanna defeat Babylon?

Yeshua still loves you though...hopes you love others just as He loved you...hope that ain't too jooish...
 
Last edited:
you know...to be more assimilated...clever joos finally realizing a non jooish sounding name would be more readily accepted by your types...and now how dare the goyim like Trump know...oy vey!
You don't think Jews should accept Christ and become assimilated? I thought you wanted everyone saved?
What exactly is 'my type' ?


Yeshua still loves you though...hopes you love others just as He loved you...hope that ain't too jooish...
You take a wrecking ball to the English language every time you poast.
Your spiritual arrogance is staggering. Isn't that a sin in your eyes?
Oh...I forgot, you are just trolling....never mind....
 

Gawn Chippin

Arachnocronymic Metaphoron
...I used to know a Jewish woman whose family changed their name to 'Smith' so they could fully assimilate into society...
"Assimilation" = sincere self-W.A.S.P.ing. Moar than likely, the family wishes to submarine beneath society? Choosing Smith leaves a clue between fellow Crypto Foreskinners, when a phantom Gold preceeds Smith
 

clefty

Phoron
You don't think Jews should accept Christ and become assimilated?
of course da joos should…and in accepting Christ they’d naturally be more like Him and His ways...not this world which hates Him that…

but assimilate the Way as He taught and demonstrated...as when back in the NT myraids of believing joos were still zealous of the Law (Acts 21:20)...and not assimilating the Roman laws around them...or the Church's culture to come...

so yeah... non believing joos should accept Christ and become assimilated to Him and His Ways. Especially since it was He Who outlined all that back at Sinai when da joos first said "I do" as a minority of a mixed multitude out of Egypt...

and these joos were a minority part of this ekklesia in the wilderness come to be known as Israel...you in?

Yes...Accept Christ indeed...but certainly not embrace (as their ancestors did in the OT) the decadent culture around us...which they also contributed so much towards...(or do you blame them exclusively for the culture created here?)

Happily I know quite a few joos who accept Him and are still not assimilated...in fact these Messiah accepting joos are especially mocked and rejected by those that also claim to follow Him

...the sad irony...you know "cuz they still be too jooish"...what with their Hebrew names and Hebrew words...and fringes...and Sabbath festivals...oh and WUT?!! NO PORK?

These Christ is the Messiah accepting joos speak of how easy it was to do so once they realized He meant it when He said "think not I have come to destroy the Law"...they laugh when they admit they were actually believing a jooish myth that He had come to destroy the customs Moses delivered.

Yup a myth joos started trying to slander poor Stephen with false witness that he taught Jesus had come to destroy the Law...Poor Stephen...Luke was clear it was joos stirring up trouble against Stephen by claiming he was teaching something he wasnt...

If Stephen was teaching Jesus DID come to destroy the Law then it would not be FALSE witness but true... get it?

feel free to read all about it in Acts 6.

As it stands...assimilation of His Way as He lived is the natural fruits of accepting Him...of being grafted into a greater tree...adopted into His kingdom...as a full citizen...by our faith...

out of gratitude for what He did to save us...we WANT to be more like Him less like our former selves...

I thought you wanted everyone saved?
sure dude...but they'll want to change to be more like Him...just as I want to...be more like Him and a citizen of His kingdom and not this world who hates Him...

More like Him less like their former selves...

And we should love others just as He first loved us...JUST AS...

Sadly His way is not for everyone...the road being straight...get it?...

...oh and narrow as not many people will choose it...ya dig?

As He said..."if you love me keep My commandments"...not the world's and its culture or the Church's...its traditions...

"He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also to walk, even as he walked." 1 John 2:6...

or as to be more in line with this thread 1 Yochanan 2:6 meaning "Yahweh is gracious"...does the name "John" mean that for you?
 

clefty

Phoron
You take a wrecking ball to the English language every time you poast.
Your spiritual arrogance is staggering. Isn't that a sin in your eyes?
Oh...I forgot, you are just trolling....never mind....
thus Doc Ya'aqov concludes the 666th message in the Religion section of Phora...lol.

Here's an honest admission in an article discussing "da joos" whether or not they should be proselytized by Rome...

"This discussion of Christian teaching on the Mosaic covenant makes it unnecessary to dwell at length on the assertions that there is no Catholic mission to Jews and that Catholics ought not to convert Jews. These claims are totally absurd, and in fact a reversal of the truth about the first period of the Catholic Church. When Jesus first called the apostles and sent them to preach, he forbade them to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans, and instructed them to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew ch. 10). The initial mission of the church after Pentecost was only directed at Jews. Gentiles only began to be accepted as Christians after the establishment of the diaconate and the martyrdom of St. Stephen (cf. Acts ch. 11). Even after the admission of Gentiles to the Church, we see St. Paul giving priority to the evangelisation of Jews, by preaching first in synagogues and only afterwards to Gentiles. This priority was a recognition of a Jewish right and privilege; as God’s chosen people, they were entitled to hear the message of salvation before the Gentiles did. If there was no Christian mission to Jews, there never would have been a Catholic Church, since the Church was initially entirely Jewish in her composition."


...but alas changes due to peer pressure already began that first century...an assimilation to the greater culture around them...from Hebrew to not so much "jooish"...

"...These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 21And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans." Acts 16:20-21 Ironically Paul claims his Roman citizenship a few verses later...or was it Saul?

Wonder which customs so offended the Romans to observe? Was Paul teaching eat pig or don't eat pig? Which would offend Romans?...

Which would Jesus do?

Indeed much was lost in translation...
 

clefty

Phoron
To whom in may concern:
Please change my name to Dr. Alan James 666
Thanks in advance
DAJ



from “heel catcher” to more “heel bruiser”

Sounds right…

thing is…none of the renamed asked for it…


prolly cuz they didn't have nefarious intent

Cant say the same for those that change names

As you alluded to earlier…

As did the article you cited…
 

clefty

Phoron

"Christianity had existed in Arabia for 400 years before Muhammad was born.

For hundreds of years, Arab Christians had always called Jesus Yasu or Yasuwa. (The name is derived from the original Hebrew, Yeshua, which means “Yahweh is Salvation.”)

When Muhammad lived in the 7th century, he would surely have known and heard about Yasū’ (يَسُوعَ) that the Christians believed in and spoke of.

Sometime after 610 AD, Muhammad introduced a new name in Arabic that no Arab Christian had ever heard of or used for Jesus before.

Isa was a character loosely based on the real Yasuwa of the Bible and other folktales and legends from unreliable gnostic sources circulating at the time and Muhammad called his name Isa.

If Muhammad’s Isa is the same as the Yasuwa of the Arab Christians, why did he invent a NEW name, Isa (عيسى) instead of using the name Yasuwa (يَسُوعَ) that every Arab had known for hundreds of years?

Was it because he was creating a new character that would fit his new religion?

Before Muhammad, no Arab had heard of Isa. True Christians were not swayed by Muhammad’s tales. They rejected him.

In fact, Arab Christians continue using the name Yasuwa today.

Open an Arabic bible. You will find the name Yasuwa. You will never find the name, Isa.

Now we can understand.
When Muslims say, Isa was not crucified, they are right. He was not.
It was Yasuwa who was crucified."


"The traditional Arabic name for Jesus is Yasu'. Until very recent times, all Arab Christians used no other name for Jesus. And even today, that is the name used by more than 99% of all Arab Christians. Just walk into any Arab Christian church, turn on Arabic Christian broadcasting, read Arabic Christian literature written for Christians. You will only find Yasu', never Esa. Only very recently (perhaps some 25 years ago) some Christians started to use the name Esa in Arabic publications written specifically for Muslims in the hope that they may more easily accept their message if they see the quranic name for Jesus instead of the traditional Christian one.[1] Nevertheless, among themselves, Arab Christians do not use Esa. Abualrub's statement suggests that Arab Christians commonly use Esa, and that is simply wrong.

The traditional Arabic rendering or transliteration of the original Hebrew name (Yeshua') is Yasu'. Every choice of transliteration of a foreign name into a different language is a human "invention". The English spelling "Muhammad" is just as much an invention as "Jesus" or "Yasu'" or "Esa". Problems only arise when people like Abualrub make the claim that the quranic invention "Esa" is the true (i.e. original) name of Jesus. That is merely a polemical attempt to elevate the Islamic invention not only above all other renderings in other languages, but even above the original. That is unacceptable, and it is bad scholarship."
 
Last edited:
Top