Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Woodrow]

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

Give that what Hugo wrote was a mirror to what Woodrow wrote, I don't understand how one can be critical of what Hugo wrote and applaude what Woodrow wrote.

Woodrow's own response was "Touche!", and I believe implied that Woodrow had been able to see himself in Hugo's reply. I don't see how using Woodrow's own words that he spoke in reference to the Bible and applying them to the Qur'an are hypocritical in the slightest. Christians don't view the Qur'an the same way that Muslims do. Nothing at all hypocritical in a non-Muslim applying the same words toward the Qur'an, as a Muslim applies to another's persons' holy text. If you think they speak dismissively, derisively, or otherwise inappropriately, then please understand that is just how such words might be heard by others when first used to describe one's views of the Bible.

I am aware that my post instigated the Reply by Hugo. I have to accept the responsibility for Hugo's reply. When a person speaks in a manner that is offensive to others, they can only blame themselves if they get a mirror image thrown back at them. I am going to delete both posts, as both posts can be seen as inappropriate for peaceful dialog. but I am leaving all the referring posts untouched. I believe there is a subtle lesson we all can learn from this.

 

[Zafran]

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

Give that what Hugo wrote was a mirror to what Woodrow wrote, I don't understand how one can be critical of what Hugo wrote and applaude what Woodrow wrote.

Woodrow's own response was "Touche!", and I believe implied that Woodrow had been able to see himself in Hugo's reply. I don't see how using Woodrow's own words that he spoke in reference to the Bible and applying them to the Qur'an are hypocritical in the slightest. Christians don't view the Qur'an the same way that Muslims do. Nothing at all hypocritical in a non-Muslim applying the same words toward the Qur'an, as a Muslim applies to another's persons' holy text. If you think they speak dismissively, derisively, or otherwise inappropriately, then please understand that is just how such words might be heard by others when first used to describe one's views of the Bible.

where did a i applaud Woodrow? The difference is that woodrow didnt critic the mode of thinking, Hugo did and then he applied the same mode of thinking to show his own beliefs - preety much hypocricy.

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

ofcourse they are there real beliefs - or are they playing fun and games?

 

[Hiroshi]

Interesting. I do know the full prohibition against alcohol took time to reveal and we were not immediately told of the prohibition

Soorah 16:67 says: “And the fruits of the palm and the vine, from which you derive intoxicants and wholesome food. Surely in this there is a sign for men of understanding.” (Dawood)
This verse says nothing bad about alcohol.

However, a later verse, Soorah 2:219 states that there is more harm than good in alcoholic drinks. Evidently, drunkenness caused serious problems for the Muslims.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 324 says: “Allah's Apostle started rebuking Hamza for what he had done, but Hamza was drunk and his eyes were red. Hamza looked at Allah's Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he raised up his eyes look in at his face. Hamza then said, "Aren't you but the slaves of my father?" Allah's Apostle realized that he was drunk, so Allah's Apostle retreated, and we went out with him.”

It seems that on one occasion some were so drunk that they could not pray properly. So Soorah 4:43 directed them: “Believers, do not approach your prayers when you are drunk, but wait until you can grasp the meaning of your words.” (Dawood)

This still only forbids alcohol before prayers. It doesn’t ban alcohol completely.

But then a later passage in Soorah 5:90-91 finally made it law to abstain from alcohol altogether. So the disapproval of alcohol was expressed in gradual stages each time with a stronger admonition until finally alcohol was completely outlawed.

I am not familiar with any such Hadith. But, I admit I am not familiar with very many Ahadith. Would you be kind enough to give a source for that Hadith?

Please see my post number 305. By the way, I am not at all an expert in these matters. So I would be grateful if you could correct any mistakes that I might make.

 

[r1h22s]

I wish to point out that Injeel is not Gospel and Injeel can never be translated to "Gospel" just as Isa can never be translated to "Jesus" and those wno continue to insert names like "Jesus" and "Gospel" into the Quran and into Islam are certainly not on right guidance and misunderstand the Scripture.
When the Quran confirms that the Messiah was not crucified, the Quran confirms that there was a hoax in the crucifixion, and because Allah Speaks the Truth, the Bible agrees with the Quran and the Bible shows itself to be a party to the Hoax and it exposes the beautiful execution of the hoax in which two thieves were named "Jesus" for their unexpected crucifixion on the Sabbath. Please bring the Quran and Islam into the 21st. century?

 

[r1h22s]

TRUTH IN THE BIBLE IS:

• “Well Master, thou hast said the Truth: for there is ONE GOD, and there is None other but He.” Mark 12:32
• The Gospel of Christ was preached before any disciple was named. (See Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 11:4 – 5, and Mark 1:14 – 15)
• The Gospel of Christ was preached without any mention of physical violence to the Messiah. (See Matthew 4:23-25, Chapters 5 - 10, 11:4 – 5, and Mark 1:14 – 15)
• The Gospel of Christ was preached without as much as a whisper of any crucifixion of any sort. (See Matthew 4:23, 5:1 –27, 9:35, 11:4 – 5, and Mark 1:14 – 15)
• Christ sent out his disciples who successfully preached his Gospel without mention of any physical harm coming to the Christ and without a word of a crucifixion of any sort. (See Matthew 10:1 – 42, Mark 6:7 – 13, Luke 9:1 – 10)
• Roman Governor of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, declared Christ innocent of all false accusations that were brought against him, (See Luke 23:4,14, 15, 22, John 18:38, 19:46)
• Roman Governor, Herod of Galilee, declared Christ innocent (Luke23: 15) making Christ a free man under Roman Power and Authority (Luke 23:20, John19:12)
• Three Gospels give evidence that Christ bore no cross and made no physical contact with the trappings of crucifixion. (See Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26)
• Three Gospels give evidence that one Simon of Cyrene, who was not the Christ, was made to bear a cross to Golgotha. (See Matthew 27:32-37, Mark 15:21-26, and Luke 23:26-38) and this indicates to us that there were three crosses on the way to Golgotha, none of which Christ carried.
• The Gospel of John alone gives evidence that the cross that was borne by Jesus carried the inscription, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:16-22).
• Two of the four Gospels have given us two crosses out of three with the inscribed name of “JESUS”. (Matthew 27:37, John 19:19)
• Governor Pontius Pilate was the author of the inscription and title of “JESUS KING OF THE JEWS” and this was therefore the official title of the crucifixion of two thieves by Roman authority. (John 19:19-22)
• The “Jesus” of the Gospels is not the Christ but the thieves who were crucified. The Christ was not crucified nor is Jesus the Christ, as the Gospel of John would have us believe, “That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ”. (John 20:31)
• The name “Jesus “is a Roman title and is not the name of the son of the virgin of Isaiah 7:14, and nowhere in the Gospels does the virgin name her child as Jesus.
• None of the four Gospels mention the presence of two thieves for crucifixion during the trials and the scourging, or before all three crosses arrive at Golgotha. (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:33, John 19:18)
• It was only when the procession arrived at Golgotha that the Gospels came to realise that there were actually three crosses and that two thieves made the trip to Golgotha for crucifixion. (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:33, John 19:18)
• "Jehu is King." (II Kings 9:13) Jehu means “He is Jah” and Jehu was anointed "King over Israel." (II Kings 9:12), making him Jehu Christ.
• There is no Jesus Christ in the Old Testament but there is a Jehu Christ, King over Israel (II Kings 9:2-3). Jehu translates He is Jah, but Jesus is a combination of Jah and Zeus and an attempt to make Zeus equal with Jah.
• Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23) is the name that was commanded for the Messiah, the son of the virgin, by the Lord, God of the Children of Israel.
• The name “Immanuel” is Hebrew for “God with us” while the name “Jesus” is not of the Hebrew language and is neither Greek nor Latin for “God with us” but combines Jah (Hebrew) and Zeus (Greek) to unite Jah with Zeus.
• The name of “Jesus” was Pontius Pilate’s officially declared and written name of the crucified King of the Jews, (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, John 19:19-22).
• Pilate overruled Jewish objections to the name of Jesus that was officially inscribed on all three crosses and he left the inscriptions as they were (John 19:21).
• Nowhere, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, does anyone make the claim, “I am Jesus” nor does anyone claim, “I am the Christ” nor does anyone claim, “I am Jesus Christ”.
• The name, “Jesus”, is used approximately 628 times in the four Gospels with 171 in Matthew, 95 in Mark, 100 in Luke and 250 in John.
• The title “Christ” is used 51 times in the four Gospels with 12 in Matthew, 8 in Mark, 12 in Luke and 19 in John.
• Jesus is therefore used just over 12 times as much as Christ in the four Gospels, with a ratio of 12.12 to 1. The number 12 is of great importance in the worship of Zeus the Sun God, with twelve months in the year being representative of the twelve disciples.
• Zeus is the Sky God that was worshipped by the Romans as the God of Gods and the Father of Gods and men, and it was among the priests and worshippers of Zeus that Paul and Barnabas performed their “miracles” and preached “the “Living God.” (Acts of the Apostles 14:12 –13)
• It was none other than Zeus the Sky God who is alleged to have spoken from the Midday Sun to Paul saying, “I am Jesus.” (See Acts of the Apostles 9:5, 22:8, and 26:15)
• Paul’s three accounts of his close encounter with Zeus in the midday Sun produced witnesses who saw and did not see the light, who heard yet did not hear the voice, and who stood yet fell to the earth. .” (See Acts of the Apostles 9:5, 22:8, and 26:15)
• The light of Paul’s Jesus from the midday Sun was “above the brightness of the Sun,” shone “round about” Paul and blinded him, yet he assumed that it came from the Heavens above, so Paul himself also saw yet did not see. .” (Acts of the Apostles 9:5, 22:8, and 26:15)
• Zeus the Sky God and Father God speaks in a voice from the Sky at the Baptism of Jesus, “my beloved son,” while the Holy Spirit descended “like a dove.” (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22)
• Jesus is described with the features of Zeus the Sky God at the Transfiguration as “his face did shine as the Sun, and his raiment as white as the light” (Matthew 17:2), “And his raiment became shining exceeding white as Snow (Mark 9:3) “And there was a cloud that overshadowed them”, (with the unmistakable voice of Zeus) “and a voice came out of the cloud saying, this is my beloved son” (Mark 9:7) “his countenance was altered and his raiment was white and glistering” (Luke 9:29), “and there came a cloud and overshadowed them” (Luke 9: 34) “and there came a voice out of the cloud” (Luke 9:35), and all of this is in a meeting with Elisha or Eliseus (Luke 4:27).
• The name, Jesus, is a combination of Jah and Zeus as the intention of Governor Pontius Pilate to match the false charges made by the Biblical Jews that he made himself a God and a Son of God.
• Jah is the God of Israel while Zeus is the God of pagan Rome.
• The Angel at the tomb is none other than Zeus, with the same features as Jesus (Jezeus) in the Transfiguration; “His countenance was like the lightening and his raiment white as snow.” (Matthew 28:3)
• “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29), meaning, I can’t save you. You have got to save yourself by your own hands and your own effort.
• “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable.” (Matthew 5:29), meaning, I can’t save you. You have got to save yourself by your own hands and your own effort.

 

[Hiroshi]

[*]The name, Jesus, is a combination of Jah and Zeus as the intention of Governor Pontius Pilate to match the false charges made by the Biblical Jews that he made himself a God and a Son of God.
[*]Jah is the God of Israel while Zeus is the God of pagan Rome.

Hi r1h22s.

I agree that "Jah" (or "Jehovah") is the name of the God of Israel. But Jesus' name has nothing to do with Zeus. "Jesus" is the Greek form of the name "Yeshua". This is almost identical with "Joshua" which is a contraction of "Jehoshua" meaning: "Jehovah is Salvation".

 

[Woodrow]

Please see my post number 305. By the way, I am not at all an expert in these matters. So I would be grateful if you could correct any mistakes that I might make.

If you look back to immediatly after both your post and mine you will see an excellent explanation by Sister Lily.

 

[جوري]

Hi r1h22s.

I agree that "Jah" (or "Jehovah") is the name of the God of Israel. But Jesus' name has nothing to do with Zeus. "Jesus" is the Greek form of the name "Yeshua". This is almost identical with "Joshua" which is a contraction of "Jehoshua" meaning: "Jehovah is Salvation".

CHAPTER THREE - WHO IS JEHOVAH? (What is His Name - by Ahmed Deedat)[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]COMMON ORIGIN[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham.[FONT=Garamond, times new roman]1 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both.[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]HEBREW[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]ARABIC[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]ENGLISH[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Elah[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Ilah[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]god[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Ikhud[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Ahud[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]one[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Yaum [/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Yaum[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]day[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Shaloam[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Salaam[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]peace[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Yahuwa[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Ya Huwa[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]oh he[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. "Ya" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He! ELOHIM.[/FONT]

Yehova literally translates to 'Oh He' not 'salvation'
http://www.jamaat.net/name/name3.html[/FONT]

 

[Hugo]

I wish to point out that Injeel is not Gospel and Injeel can never be translated to "Gospel" just as Isa can never be translated to "Jesus" and those wno continue to insert names like "Jesus" and "Gospel" into the Quran and into Islam are certainly not on right guidance and misunderstand the Scripture. When the Quran confirms that the Messiah was not crucified, the Quran confirms that there was a hoax in the crucifixion, and because Allah Speaks the Truth, the Bible agrees with the Quran and the Bible shows itself to be a party to the Hoax and it exposes the beautiful execution of the hoax in which two thieves were named "Jesus" for their unexpected crucifixion on the Sabbath. Please bring the Quran and Islam into the 21st. century?

Then WHO or what is the Qu'ran talking about and one supposes you then believe in a man who we know practically nothing about and books as far as we know, no one has ever seen? Hard to see how one can get any guidance from what amounts to nothing?

 

[جوري]

Then WHO or what is the Qu'ran talking about and one supposes you then believe in a man who we know practically nothing about and books as far as we know, no one has ever seen? Hard to see how one can get any guidance from what amounts to nothing?

Indeed that is the remarkable thing about the Quran, an illiterate man has given us the amazing Quran with all that entails on subjects running the gamut, in a melodious tongue that no poet has been able to replicate and still have it be a spiritual guidance and complete way of life to be followed for millenniums, is enough of a testimony to its divine origin!

 

[Grace Seeker]

I am aware that my post instigated the Reply by Hugo. I have to accept the responsibility for Hugo's reply. When a person speaks in a manner that is offensive to others, they can only blame themselves if they get a mirror image thrown back at them. I am going to delete both posts, as both posts can be seen as inappropriate for peaceful dialog. but I am leaving all the referring posts untouched. I believe there is a subtle lesson we all can learn from this.

Woodrow, speaking for myself alone, and not all Christians, I didn't find either your post nor Hugo's offensive.

 

[Woodrow]

Hi r1h22s.

I agree that "Jah" (or "Jehovah") is the name of the God of Israel. But Jesus' name has nothing to do with Zeus. "Jesus" is the Greek form of the name "Yeshua". This is almost identical with "Joshua" which is a contraction of "Jehoshua" meaning: "Jehovah is Salvation".

The letter J was not known or used in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Koine Greek, or even Old English. The name Jesus was never written in the Bible until recent times even in the original 1611 KJV Jesus was spelled Iesous. Using the name Jesus is a very recent innovation and is still unknown in theology except to modern English speaking Christians.

To some non-English speaking, non-Christians, It could easily appear to be an attempt to incorporate the name Zeus and change the worship of God to the worship of Zeus.

A study of the name Jesus from linguistic sources is a very interesting study. If you have the opportunity to do so look further into it, I believe you will find that what seems to be ancient is a very modern development.

 

[Hugo]

CHAPTER THREE - WHO IS JEHOVAH? (What is His Name - by Ahmed Deedat)What is YHWH]; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham. Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both. YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. "Ya" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He!Yehova literally translates to 'Oh He' not 'salvation'

It is agreed that Yahweh is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible though in this form its a modern scholarly convention: Hebrew writes it as four consonants, rendered in Roman letters as YHWH, due to the fact that most alphabets (including Arabic), prior the Greek alphabet, did not display vowels, and so the vowels had to be mentally pronounced in the proper places and for most purposes Hebrew is printed without vowels. The most likely meaning of the name may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists," but there are many theories and none is regarded as conclusive.

Hebrew itself is a semitic language written from right to left and in its earliest form it was pictographic but this was ultimately abandoned in favour of the Aramaic alphabetic script. The story is much the same for Arabic and it is likely there that its script as we know it arose from the Aramaic alphabet and probably came into use via Christian cops at a very early date. Some recent discoveries relating to the famous Islamic translation movement from the 8th to the 10th centuries shows that Islamic philologists were able to do a partial reading of Egyptian hieroglyphics and they did it by linking Coptic writing, to Arabic script and looking for similarities in letter shapes to the hieroglyphics - astounding really that they got that far and as you probably know a full translation was not made of the hieroglyphics until about 1803 after the discovery of the Rosetta stone.

 

[Hiroshi]

CHAPTER THREE - WHO IS JEHOVAH? (What is His Name - by Ahmed Deedat)[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]COMMON ORIGIN[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded.

Very true.

Regardless of the exact way to pronounce the name, the meaning of the name is explained in Exodus 3:14 where God is asked what his name is. He replies: "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" meaning "I Will Prove To Be what I Will Prove To Be". Or as Rotheram translates it: "I Will Become Whatsoever I Please." "Ehyeh" appears to be in the first person (i.e. when God is speaking of himself) whereas "Jehovah" appears to be in the third person (i.e.when God is spoken of by others: "He Will Prove To Be").

 

[جوري]

It is agreed that Yahweh is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible though in this form its a modern scholarly convention: Hebrew writes it as four consonants, rendered in Roman letters as YHWH, due to the fact that most alphabets (including Arabic), prior the Greek alphabet, did not display vowels, and so the vowels had to be mentally pronounced in the proper places and for most purposes Hebrew is printed without vowels. The most likely meaning of the name may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists," but there are many theories and none is regarded as conclusive.

It doesn't matter what is 'agreed' what matters is the etymology of the word not its evolution to acquiesce to your personal beliefs!

Hebrew itself is a semitic language written from left to right and in its earliest form it was pictographic but this was ultimately abandoned in favour of the Aramaic alphabetic script.

Hebrew like other semitic languages is written from right to left.. you really should do some minimum research before you write?

The story is much the same for Arabic and it is likely there that its script as we know it arose from the Aramaic alphabet and probably came into use via Christian cops at a very early date. Some recent discoveries relating to the famous Islamic translation movement from the 8th to the 10th centuries shows that Islamic philologists were able to do a partial reading of Egyptian hieroglyphics and they did it by linking Coptic writing, to Arabic script and looking for similarities in letter shapes to the hieroglyphics - astounding really that they got that far and as you probably know a full translation was not made of the hieroglyphics until about 1803 after the discovery of the Rosetta stone.

Irrelevant, or did you have a point to tie with the previous?

 

[Hugo]

Indeed that is the remarkable thing about the Quran, an illiterate man has given us the amazing Quran with all that entails on subjects running the gamut, in a melodious tongue that no poet has been able to replicate and still have it be a spiritual guidance and complete way of life to be followed for millenniums, is enough of a testimony to its divine origin!

One wonders if what you say here borders on blasphemy - I though it was Allah who gave you the Qu'ran?

 

[جوري]

One wonders if what you say here borders on blasphemy -

Generally you lack good judgment, good common sense and are ignorant of subjects you wish to engage as I have just demonstrated above and previous (repeatedly) so your wonderment and puzzlement are yours to keep!

I though it was Allah who gave you the Qu'ran?

Indeed and by the means mentioned!

all the best

 

[Hiroshi]

The letter J was not known or used in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Koine Greek, or even Old English. The name Jesus was never written in the Bible until recent times even in the original 1611 KJV Jesus was spelled Iesous. Using the name Jesus is a very recent innovation and is still unknown in theology except to modern English speaking Christians.

Yes. I should have said "Iesous" rather than "Jesus". My main point was that he would have been addressed as "Yeshua" by others.

To some non-English speaking, non-Christians, It could easily appear to be an attempt to incorporate the name Zeus and change the worship of God to the worship of Zeus.

A study of the name Jesus from linguistic sources is a very interesting study. If you have the opportunity to do so look further into it, I believe you will find that what seems to be ancient is a very modern development.

Really? Like later than 1611?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I think that not only 1611, but even 1517 would count as fairly modern development.

 

[Woodrow]

Yes. I should have said "Iesous" rather than "Jesus". My main point was that he would have been addressed as "Yeshua" by others.

Really? Like later than 1611?

If memory serves me correctly the spelling Jesus did not appear in the Bible until the mid 1700's it may have been later. While the letter J first appeared in the English language in the 14th Century, it was rarely used and was sort of a slang type letter.

It was not until the mid 1800s that the letter J was actually accepted as a letter.

So from the 17th Century onward, our alphabet contained the same 26 letters as we now use. But even then, many scholars still treated it as having only 24: they still considered U and V as one letter, and I and J as one letter. For example, Samuel Johnson's dictionary, published in the mid-18th Century, had all the I and J words mixed together. It was only in the mid-19th Century that scholars fully accepted that these were separate letters and that there are 26 letters in the alphabet.

SOURCE