can not like your babble what so ever. its all a huge LIE. please tell me gentile since u r not an adopted child into Yah’s CHOSEN CHILDREN,where did you learn about FAITH in Jesus??? was it a bible college and NOT from STUDYING YAH’s WHOLE Word?? Jesus as you call Him has fullfilled PASSOVER ,FEAST of UNLEAVENED Bread, 1st FRUITS Feast of weeks which is to come is His gathering all HIS CHILDREN that Obey Our Abba. He was born on FEAST of TRUMPETS!!! not extremely UNHOLY DEC25 which is satans soltice sacrifice of thousands of children each yr! and nimrods birthday. Day of ATONMENT Feast of weeks falls on the day after the Sabbath, which is sunday the day He gathered all those who awaited His coming before His coming! the day christiands claim the reason why they followed the popes changing of YAHUAHS HOLY SABBATH! and He arose from the grave even thoe He was already out of the grave before this day started! Feast of Tabernacles (SUKKOT) is when He comes to earth to govern His children and the 8th day of Sukkot is The WEDDING DAY! SOOO u teach some truly bad stuff ! what was nailed to the cross?? was DEATH. He nailed the death we all deserve onto that tree! so that we might be free from our sins!
Elaine, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I can tell that honoring God and being faithful to His Word are important to you. Those things matter deeply to me as well.
I agree with you that we need to study the whole counsel of Scripture, including the Old Testament. I also agree that the biblical feasts are significant and that Jesus fulfills what they point toward. Where we seem to disagree is whether Scripture requires all Christians, including Gentile believers, to observe those festivals.
I would encourage you to carefully consider Acts 15, particularly the decision of the apostles concerning Gentile believers, along with Colossians 2:16â17 and Romans 14:5â6. I recognize that Torah-observant believers interpret some of these passages differently, which is why I’ve written more detailed studies examining those arguments.
I would also encourage caution with some of the historical claims you’ve made. Scripture does not tell us that Jesus was born on the Feast of Trumpets. Nor is there reliable historical evidence establishing December 25 as Nimrod’s birthday or as an annual occasion for the satanic sacrifice of thousands of children. We should be especially careful about presenting such claims as facts when neither Scripture nor the available historical evidence establishes them.
As for Christmas itself, I don’t believe Scripture commands Christians to celebrate it. But neither do I believe Scripture establishes that remembering Christ’s birth on December 25 is inherently sinful. Christians should be careful not to participate in idolatry or elevate human traditions above God’s commands. On that, I believe we agree.
I also agree wholeheartedly that Christ bore the penalty for our sins through His death on the cross. What a wonderful truth! But passages such as Colossians 2:13â17 deserve careful consideration in understanding what Paul says about our debt of sin and the regulations associated with the Mosaic covenant.
My desire isn’t to win an argument or defend a tradition. It’s to understand and faithfully communicate what God has revealed in His Word. Where Scripture speaks clearly, we should speak clearly. Where the historical evidence is uncertain, we should acknowledge that uncertainty rather than claiming more than we can demonstrate.
I appreciate your concern for faithfulness to God, and I would simply encourage us both to examine these questions with humility, allowing Scripture to shape our conclusions rather than requiring Scripture to support conclusions we’ve already reached.
This scripture is not the only place in the Bible concerning âThe Name. Why wouldnât âThe Nameâ:be an important issue? There was no J until the 500âs, so who decided to change His name? My name is the same in any language, so why would it be necessary to change the Saviorâs name. It doesnât make sense. I would like to know what name Peter was referring g to in the language on which he, and the other Apostles spoke. Obviously, God had given (Jesus) a name and that is the name which should be spoken.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and questions. I agree with you that the name of our Savior is important. Scripture certainly emphasizes His name, and I would never suggest otherwise. The question I’m examining in this article is whether Scripture teaches that salvation depends upon using one particular pronunciation of that name.
You’re correct that the English name “Jesus” was not the name Peter would have spoken in his everyday language. Jesus’ Hebrew/Aramaic name was most likely *Yeshua* (×׊×ע), a form related to the Hebrew name *Yehoshua* (Joshua). I have absolutely no objection to someone calling Him Yeshua.
You’re also correct that the letter J, as we use it today, developed much later. However, its history is more complicated than saying it appeared in the 500s. The letter J gradually developed from the Latin letter I, eventually becoming a distinct letter in European languages. That development doesn’t mean someone deliberately changed the Savior’s name or identity.
You also mentioned that your name remains the same in every language. While people can certainly retain their preferred names when speaking another language, names have historically taken different forms across languages. My own name is Thomas, but in Spanish the traditional equivalent is TomĂĄs, and in Italian it’s Tommaso. Interestingly, Thomas is itself a biblical name that came into English through Greek and Latin from an Aramaic name. Yet these different forms don’t mean we’re referring to different people.
The same principle helps explain how Yeshua became *IÄsous* (៸ΡĎοῌĎ) in Greek, *Iesus* in Latin, and eventually Jesus in English.
But perhaps the most important consideration is what we find in Scripture itself.
Although Peter likely spoke Aramaic in everyday life, Luke recorded Peter’s words in Acts 4 in Greek. In Acts 4:10, the name Luke uses is *IÄsous*. This is the same Greek form used throughout the New Testament to identify our Savior.
We also find something interesting in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Both passages use the Greek name *IÄsous* when referring to Joshua, the successor of Moses. In other words, Scripture itself demonstrates how a Hebrew name could be represented in Greek without changing the identity of the person being discussed.
This raises an important question: If salvation required believers to pronounce the Savior’s name only in its original Hebrew or Aramaic form, why does the inspired Greek New Testament consistently use *IÄsous* without instructing Greek-speaking believers to use a different pronunciation?
I also think it’s important to consider the context of Acts 4:12. When the religious leaders asked Peter by what power or name the man had been healed, Peter identified Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead (Acts 4:10).
Peter’s emphasis wasn’t on teaching his audience the correct pronunciation of a name. He was identifying the One through whom God had accomplished this miracle and through whom salvation is available.
That’s why I believe the phrase “no other name” emphasizes the exclusive identity and authority of Jesus Christ as Savior, rather than establishing a particular pronunciation as a requirement for salvation.
So I agree wholeheartedly that His name matters! But I want to be careful not to add a requirement that Scripture itself does not establish.
I appreciate you raising these questions, and I hope you’ll consider the distinction I’m making. My desire isn’t to defend an English pronunciation or discourage anyone from using the name Yeshua. It’s simply to understand and faithfully communicate what Scripture teaches.
Ultimately, our salvation rests not in our ability to pronounce His name in a particular language, but in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Savior.
Thank you again for engaging in the discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to examine these things together.
can not like your babble what so ever. its all a huge LIE. please tell me gentile since u r not an adopted child into Yah’s CHOSEN CHILDREN,where did you learn about FAITH in Jesus??? was it a bible college and NOT from STUDYING YAH’s WHOLE Word?? Jesus as you call Him has fullfilled PASSOVER ,FEAST of UNLEAVENED Bread, 1st FRUITS Feast of weeks which is to come is His gathering all HIS CHILDREN that Obey Our Abba. He was born on FEAST of TRUMPETS!!! not extremely UNHOLY DEC25 which is satans soltice sacrifice of thousands of children each yr! and nimrods birthday. Day of ATONMENT Feast of weeks falls on the day after the Sabbath, which is sunday the day He gathered all those who awaited His coming before His coming! the day christiands claim the reason why they followed the popes changing of YAHUAHS HOLY SABBATH! and He arose from the grave even thoe He was already out of the grave before this day started! Feast of Tabernacles (SUKKOT) is when He comes to earth to govern His children and the 8th day of Sukkot is The WEDDING DAY! SOOO u teach some truly bad stuff ! what was nailed to the cross?? was DEATH. He nailed the death we all deserve onto that tree! so that we might be free from our sins!
Elaine, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I can tell that honoring God and being faithful to His Word are important to you. Those things matter deeply to me as well.
I agree with you that we need to study the whole counsel of Scripture, including the Old Testament. I also agree that the biblical feasts are significant and that Jesus fulfills what they point toward. Where we seem to disagree is whether Scripture requires all Christians, including Gentile believers, to observe those festivals.
I would encourage you to carefully consider Acts 15, particularly the decision of the apostles concerning Gentile believers, along with Colossians 2:16â17 and Romans 14:5â6. I recognize that Torah-observant believers interpret some of these passages differently, which is why I’ve written more detailed studies examining those arguments.
I would also encourage caution with some of the historical claims you’ve made. Scripture does not tell us that Jesus was born on the Feast of Trumpets. Nor is there reliable historical evidence establishing December 25 as Nimrod’s birthday or as an annual occasion for the satanic sacrifice of thousands of children. We should be especially careful about presenting such claims as facts when neither Scripture nor the available historical evidence establishes them.
As for Christmas itself, I don’t believe Scripture commands Christians to celebrate it. But neither do I believe Scripture establishes that remembering Christ’s birth on December 25 is inherently sinful. Christians should be careful not to participate in idolatry or elevate human traditions above God’s commands. On that, I believe we agree.
I also agree wholeheartedly that Christ bore the penalty for our sins through His death on the cross. What a wonderful truth! But passages such as Colossians 2:13â17 deserve careful consideration in understanding what Paul says about our debt of sin and the regulations associated with the Mosaic covenant.
My desire isn’t to win an argument or defend a tradition. It’s to understand and faithfully communicate what God has revealed in His Word. Where Scripture speaks clearly, we should speak clearly. Where the historical evidence is uncertain, we should acknowledge that uncertainty rather than claiming more than we can demonstrate.
I appreciate your concern for faithfulness to God, and I would simply encourage us both to examine these questions with humility, allowing Scripture to shape our conclusions rather than requiring Scripture to support conclusions we’ve already reached.
This scripture is not the only place in the Bible concerning âThe Name. Why wouldnât âThe Nameâ:be an important issue? There was no J until the 500âs, so who decided to change His name? My name is the same in any language, so why would it be necessary to change the Saviorâs name. It doesnât make sense. I would like to know what name Peter was referring g to in the language on which he, and the other Apostles spoke. Obviously, God had given (Jesus) a name and that is the name which should be spoken.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and questions. I agree with you that the name of our Savior is important. Scripture certainly emphasizes His name, and I would never suggest otherwise. The question I’m examining in this article is whether Scripture teaches that salvation depends upon using one particular pronunciation of that name.
You’re correct that the English name “Jesus” was not the name Peter would have spoken in his everyday language. Jesus’ Hebrew/Aramaic name was most likely *Yeshua* (×׊×ע), a form related to the Hebrew name *Yehoshua* (Joshua). I have absolutely no objection to someone calling Him Yeshua.
You’re also correct that the letter J, as we use it today, developed much later. However, its history is more complicated than saying it appeared in the 500s. The letter J gradually developed from the Latin letter I, eventually becoming a distinct letter in European languages. That development doesn’t mean someone deliberately changed the Savior’s name or identity.
You also mentioned that your name remains the same in every language. While people can certainly retain their preferred names when speaking another language, names have historically taken different forms across languages. My own name is Thomas, but in Spanish the traditional equivalent is TomĂĄs, and in Italian it’s Tommaso. Interestingly, Thomas is itself a biblical name that came into English through Greek and Latin from an Aramaic name. Yet these different forms don’t mean we’re referring to different people.
The same principle helps explain how Yeshua became *IÄsous* (៸ΡĎοῌĎ) in Greek, *Iesus* in Latin, and eventually Jesus in English.
But perhaps the most important consideration is what we find in Scripture itself.
Although Peter likely spoke Aramaic in everyday life, Luke recorded Peter’s words in Acts 4 in Greek. In Acts 4:10, the name Luke uses is *IÄsous*. This is the same Greek form used throughout the New Testament to identify our Savior.
We also find something interesting in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Both passages use the Greek name *IÄsous* when referring to Joshua, the successor of Moses. In other words, Scripture itself demonstrates how a Hebrew name could be represented in Greek without changing the identity of the person being discussed.
This raises an important question: If salvation required believers to pronounce the Savior’s name only in its original Hebrew or Aramaic form, why does the inspired Greek New Testament consistently use *IÄsous* without instructing Greek-speaking believers to use a different pronunciation?
I also think it’s important to consider the context of Acts 4:12. When the religious leaders asked Peter by what power or name the man had been healed, Peter identified Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead (Acts 4:10).
Peter’s emphasis wasn’t on teaching his audience the correct pronunciation of a name. He was identifying the One through whom God had accomplished this miracle and through whom salvation is available.
That’s why I believe the phrase “no other name” emphasizes the exclusive identity and authority of Jesus Christ as Savior, rather than establishing a particular pronunciation as a requirement for salvation.
So I agree wholeheartedly that His name matters! But I want to be careful not to add a requirement that Scripture itself does not establish.
I appreciate you raising these questions, and I hope you’ll consider the distinction I’m making. My desire isn’t to defend an English pronunciation or discourage anyone from using the name Yeshua. It’s simply to understand and faithfully communicate what Scripture teaches.
Ultimately, our salvation rests not in our ability to pronounce His name in a particular language, but in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Savior.
Thank you again for engaging in the discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to examine these things together.