Yeshua Ben Yosef
-
http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_jesus_real_name.htm
Yeshua Ben Yosef
Here is an interesting article I came across recently, something that I was curious about on how those various meanings of the people's/places' name (especially that of the Lord and his prophets and the places mentioned in the Bible) come about...
It is most proper to call Him Yeshua. It was indeed his proper name, given to him by his parents, and only in Hebrew does this name have any meaning. In Hebrew Yeshua means both "Salvation," and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, is "Lord who is Salvation." The name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever.
Probably have to do a bit more reading on this subject, but its interesting to note that the English names were translated from and the various limits encountered during the translation that causes the original meaning behind the names to be masked off...
btw: there are also quite a bit of resources at this website as well... have fun.. -
realistically speaking.... these names do not have any intrinsic meaning in Chinese either. Globally speaking, the Biblical characters have their names translated into local languages meanings will be lost.... so what can be done in the practical sense?
ma3 tai1
ma2 ke3
lu1 jia1
yue4 han4
any meaning in Chinese? none! -
very true, a problem with transliteration .. .. just that I find that if we trace this biblical names back to the original language, there are actually intrinsic meaning to them, this also give us a glimps perhaps of the person himself and his character sometimes. probably another tool for Bible studies (especially when it comes to subject of study on Biblical character and places)Originally posted by Chin Eng:realistically speaking.... these names do not have any intrinsic meaning in Chinese either. Globally speaking, the Biblical characters have their names translated into local languages meanings will be lost.... so what can be done in the practical sense?
ma3 tai1
ma2 ke3
lu1 jia1
yue4 han4
any meaning in Chinese? none!
cheers... like I said, have fun digging... -
the more you dig the more treasures you will find...Originally posted by vince69:very true, a problem with transliteration .. .. just that I find that if we trace this biblical names back to the original language, there are actually intrinsic meaning to them, this also give us a glimps perhaps of the person himself and his character sometimes. probably another tool for Bible studies (especially when it comes to subject of study on Biblical character and places)
cheers... like I said, have fun digging... 
-
I agree with it. Like if my name is dugged back.... it does have something very similar to the title of this thread, I'd even go so much to say that we need to dig back....Originally posted by vince69:very true, a problem with transliteration .. .. just that I find that if we trace this biblical names back to the original language, there are actually intrinsic meaning to them, this also give us a glimps perhaps of the person himself and his character sometimes. probably another tool for Bible studies (especially when it comes to subject of study on Biblical character and places)
cheers... like I said, have fun digging...
....but beyond that, what can we do, in a multilinguistic world of varying literacy level?
....get those semi-illiterate peasant Christian in China to learn ancient Hebrew? and tell them that if they need to call God by the right name otherwise he won't acknowledge them? -
Mebbe become like muslims........can only pray in arabic.......Originally posted by Chin Eng:I agree with it. Like if my name is dugged back.... it does have something very similar to the title of this thread, I'd even go so much to say that we need to dig back....
....but beyond that, what can we do, in a multilinguistic world of varying literacy level?
....get those semi-illiterate peasant Christian in China to learn ancient Hebrew? and tell them that if they need to call God by the right name otherwise he won't acknowledge them? -
that is a thought....Originally posted by laoda99:Mebbe become like muslims........can only pray in arabic.......
-
it pays to understand the true name of our saviour so that we understand the richness and history of all that it implies. It also anchors us in our walk...Originally posted by vince69:very true, a problem with transliteration .. .. just that I find that if we trace this biblical names back to the original language, there are actually intrinsic meaning to them, this also give us a glimps perhaps of the person himself and his character sometimes. probably another tool for Bible studies (especially when it comes to subject of study on Biblical character and places)
cheers... like I said, have fun digging... -
Urh ... Unker... can answer both in one (two for one, discount!)Originally posted by Chin Eng:I agree with it. Like if my name is dugged back.... it does have something very similar to the title of this thread, I'd even go so much to say that we need to dig back....
....but beyond that, what can we do, in a multilinguistic world of varying literacy level?
....get those semi-illiterate peasant Christian in China to learn ancient Hebrew? and tell them that if they need to call God by the right name otherwise he won't acknowledge them?
what can we do, in a multilinguistic world of varying literacy level?
including semi-illiterate peasant Christian in China, why China, old folks in Singapore also can, right? Hokkien, Cantonese ... churches?
Well, for those who can (those with better literacy), its good/benefical to know the name in its original language and its meaning, it makes Bible Study more interesting and also put in another dimenison.
For those who cannot (those not so literate), its still good/benefical to know the name in its original language and its meaning, but I won't go to the extend of burdening them too much on this aspect. For this folks, I will say, keep it simple, simple to understand.
I know, I know, some may argue that the original is still the best, well of course they are... But then even great knowledge without love/wisdom is of nothing but an empty gong, hence, in this case, best to take them along slowly, one step at a time lest we burn them out or burden them down.
cheers... -
for those who are not so literate, I am sure that the person sharing with them can explain to them the original name in Hebrew and tell them the meaning, you do not need to be literate to communicate this I am sure. Beyond that then yes, you do not need to burden them, but at least you give them the correct picture.Originally posted by vince69:Urh ... Unker... can answer both in one (two for one, discount!)
what can we do, in a multilinguistic world of varying literacy level?
including semi-illiterate peasant Christian in China, why China, old folks in Singapore also can, right? Hokkien, Cantonese ... churches?
Well, for those who can (those with better literacy), its good/benefical to know the name in its original language and its meaning, it makes Bible Study more interesting and also put in another dimenison.
For those who cannot (those not so literate), its still good/benefical to know the name in its original language and its meaning, but I won't go to the extend of burdening them too much on this aspect. For this folks, I will say, keep it simple, simple to understand.
I know, I know, some may argue that the original is still the best, well of course they are... But then even great knowledge without love/wisdom is of nothing but an empty gong, hence, in this case, best to take them along slowly, one step at a time lest we burn them out or burden them down.
cheers... -
Originally posted by breytonhartge:
so then there is really nothing wrong with using Ye1 Su1 or Jesus? having said that, why then should there be a problem for the literate to address our Lord as Jesus? Especially if we know the cultural context and the translational difference?
for those who are not so literate, I am sure that the person sharing with them can explain to them the original name in Hebrew and tell them the meaning, you do not need to be literate to communicate this I am sure. Beyond that then yes, you do not need to burden them, but at least you give them the correct picture.
but practically, for an illiteral Chinese peasant Christian, the knowledge of whether Jesus was originally called Yeshua or not really may not be as important as knowing the works of Jesus. -
Yeshua's name describes HIS work, it is just as important as knowing what Yeshua has done for you. While you may have to use a different language to tell them about Yeshua, I do not think that it is overly difficult to use Yeshua over Jesus, which as the article says, has totally no meaning ZIP, nada, zero.Originally posted by Chin Eng:so then there is really nothing wrong with using Ye1 Su1 or Jesus? having said that, why then should there be a problem for the literate to address our Lord as Jesus? Especially if we know the cultural context and the translational difference?
but practically, for an illiteral Chinese peasant Christian, the knowledge of whether Jesus was originally called Yeshua or not really may not be as important as knowing the works of Jesus.
practically speaking, Ye Su is much close to Yeshua, and hence to explain that they have to use Ye Su a is not much more difficult is it? Rather than Jesus, which means nothing... -
ye su is closer only because you THINK soOriginally posted by breytonhartge:practically speaking, Ye Su is much close to Yeshua, and hence to explain that they have to use Ye Su a is not much more difficult is it? Rather than Jesus, which means nothing...
Jesus is not close also because you THINK so.
Jesus means nothing, but ye1 su1 means something? very inconsistent. -
does ye su sound more like Yeshua? you go figure. the "J" does not exist in hebrew at all...Originally posted by Chin Eng:ye su is closer only because you THINK so
Jesus is not close also because you THINK so.
Jesus means nothing, but ye1 su1 means something? very inconsistent.
did I say ye su means something? I just said that it was not far from Yeshua, that it would be an easier hop to make... -
Jesus is supposed to be pronounced hay zu! probably only the English language has the "Jay" sound.
-
nope ye su does not sound lie Yeshua.... one is two syllabi and the other is three.Originally posted by breytonhartge:does ye su sound more like Yeshua? you go figure. the "J" does not exist in hebrew at all...
did I say ye su means something? I just said that it was not far from Yeshua, that it would be an easier hop to make...
so why not ye su ah?
why is ye su acceptable because it is "closer". how do you measure closeness and by what degree is a certain level of closeness acceptable and what degree is it not acceptable - is there a international standard of measurement..? -
please note that I am not disagreeing with you.
I am just perturb by your lack of consistency.
Your either assume the position that
1. YESHUA is THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE WORD UNIVERSALLY, or
2. you allow a variation taking into consideration the way different languages are toned.
If your position is one (which is more consistent), you'd not agree to Ye1 Su1.
If your position is two, then you'd allow a degree of variation and Jesus will still be acceptable.
You cannot sit in between and say that one is closer than the other - if so, what is closer and how do you measure it? -
you are perturbed because you are trying to put me in a box... and you cannot...Originally posted by Chin Eng:please note that I am not disagreeing with you.
I am just perturb by your lack of consistency.
Your either assume the position that
1. YESHUA is THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE WORD UNIVERSALLY, or
2. you allow a variation taking into consideration the way different languages are toned.
If your position is one (which is more consistent), you'd not agree to Ye1 Su1.
If your position is two, then you'd allow a degree of variation and Jesus will still be acceptable.
You cannot sit in between and say that one is closer than the other - if so, what is closer and how do you measure it?
Yeshua is our saviours name. If you want to change it then make sure you explain why you made the change and explain what His real name is. It has meaning.
my position is clearly stated in my previous posts. I am sorry if you cannot accept it and that it perturbs you so much... -
I agree Yeshua is our saviours name. I have no issue if you insist that EVERY SINGLE LANGUAGE in the world should address Him as such. This is logical stand and I will accept that.Originally posted by breytonhartge:you are perturbed because you are trying to put me in a box... and you cannot...
Yeshua is our saviours name. If you want to change it then make sure you explain why you made the change and explain what His real name is. It has meaning.
my position is clearly stated in my previous posts. I am sorry if you cannot accept it and that it perturbs you so much...
However it's your acceptance of the Chinese version and NOT accepting the English version that is perturbing.
I also note that YOU CANNOT explain why one is acceptable and the other is not because you CANNOT explain which level of closeness works for you and which doesn't.
In the end, the inconsistency speaks for itself.
If you think you're in a box, it's because you put yourself there, not me. -
Heck, I couldn't care less if you called Yeshua as CCB.
Consider that Jesus is just the phonetic anglinasation of Yeshua. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
you assume that I accept the chinese version. Did I say I did?
I agree Yeshua is our saviours name. I have no issue if you insist that [b]EVERY SINGLE LANGUAGE in the world should address Him as such. This is logical stand and I will accept that.
However it's your acceptance of the Chinese version and NOT accepting the English version that is perturbing.
I also note that YOU CANNOT explain why one is acceptable and the other is not because you CANNOT explain which level of closeness works for you and which doesn't.
In the end, the inconsistency speaks for itself.
If you think you're in a box, it's because you put yourself there, not me.[/b] -
phonetic anglinasation?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Heck, I couldn't care less if you called Yeshua as CCB. Consider that Jesus is just the phonetic anglinasation of Yeshua. -
Unker, to be fair, Brey did mentioned about using the name "Ye Su a'Originally posted by Chin Eng:nope ye su does not sound lie Yeshua.... one is two syllabi and the other is three.
so why not ye su ah?
why is ye su acceptable because it is "closer". how do you measure closeness and by what degree is a certain level of closeness acceptable and what degree is it not acceptable - is there a international standard of measurement..? -
Things we have discussed on so far...
The original name of our Lord is Yeshua, which means Salvation.
The Transliterated names like Jesus, Iesus, Ye Shu, Ye Shu a ...etc do not have any meaning.
Its good and benefical to teach/share about the original name and its meaning to the general audience.
Due to the various literacy and maturity level, there is no need to over burden others on which translation/language to use when addressing the Lord.
Heck... this is not even the original purpose of this thread... which is to share about the usefulness and interesting aspect of knowing and understanding the original names and its meanings of people and places, and I am refering to People who want to indept character/location based bible studies.
*edit: now I am not sure if there is an agreement
-
Originally posted by breytonhartge:practically speaking, Ye Su is much close to Yeshua, and hence to explain that they have to use Ye Su a is not much more difficult is it? Rather than Jesus, which means nothing...
Point taken.... I missed up the small "A" However, practically no Chinese church ever used Ye Su Ah. So it is still not close to Yeshua.Originally posted by vince69:Unker, to be fair, Brey did mentioned about using the name "Ye Su a'
you never said you DID not accept. when compared to the anglicised version, you are vehemently opposed to it. Not just in this thread but also in the past.Originally posted by breytonhartge:you assume that I accept the chinese version. Did I say I did?
Why not say it clearly when I asked you to choose the two options? Why say that I tried to put you in a box?
You need to note that I am not burdened with such translation issue.Originally posted by vince69:Due to the various literacy and maturity level, there is no need to over burden others on which translation/language to use when addressing the Lord.