Sunday, July 19, 2009

The Evil Letter "J"

A Conspiracy to Hide the Name of God's Son

I hear "arguments" about Christianity sometimes which make me wonder about the condition of the man's mind. It is increasingly apparent that people hear what someone says is "knowledge" and they just run with it. Forget about researching these new found "truths", they don't even seem to apply simple logic to evaluate such claims.

One example is the whole debate about whether Jesus is REALLY the name of the Son of God when the letter "J" didn't exist until hundreds of years later. I am left shaking my head in astonishment at such statements. I would not even spend time addressing such assertions but for the fact that they seem to be becoming much more popular.

These claims demonstrate a lack of understanding in three areas:
  1. The Process of Language Translation
  2. The origins of New Testament Scripture
  3. The authority of God

"Jesus" is NOT a Translation

It is no big secret that there have historically been different languages used by peoples of the world, and even different dialects for those languages. Further, languages change over time as societies and cultures develop.

These languages use varying sets of written symbols (letters) to represent the sounds of speech native to those cultures. Therefore, even the alphabets often differ from language to language. Neither is there a 1:1 correlation between the world languages and their writing systems.

The Hebrew alphabet developed from the Phoneician/Aramaic languages back in the 11th century BC. The Greek language came from the Canaanite/Phenocian languages around 750 BC. The English alphabet originated out of the Germainic languages around the 8th century AD. Long story short, the letter "J" didn't exist during Jesus' time but neither did the English language itself.

Is that evidence of some great conspiracy to hide the true name of the Son of God? Although some say this is the case, those who hold to such claims are either misled or attempting to mislead. How could the Gospel be preached around the world if the message itself were not made available to all of the people of the world in languages they could understand?

In Hebrew, the Son of God's name is often accepted to be Yehoshua or its shortened version Yeshua. The name "Jesus" is a reference to the Hebrew name Yeshua.

Some will say, "Why would Yeshua's name need to be translated?" The answer is that it was not. There is a difference between translation and transliteration.

Translation - take the meaning of a word from one language and re-express it in the word of another language. For example, the Greek word "oikos" when translated into English becomes the word "house".

Translitertation - express the letters/words from one alphabet into the corresponding letters of another alphabet so as to maintain the sound of the original. When you transliterate the Greek word "apostolos" into English, the resulting word is "apostles".

The New Testament was written in Greek, which was the prevailing global language of commerce for the day, as English is now. 

When written down using the letters of the Greek alphabet, the Hebrew name Yeshua becomes "Iesous". Iesous, when transliterated into English (written with the English alphabet) is the name "Jesus".

Again, this is not a "different" word in substance. It is converting the letters of one language into the letters of another language.  If one writes down a word without using letters from a language the reader knows, they will not understand how to read the word let alone how to pronounce it!

Such is not a conspiracy, but a logical practice that facilitates basic communication and is still done today! For example, this is Obama's name transliterated (written in Chinese characters): 奥巴马.

Copy those Chinese letters and paste it into Google. You will pull up a TON of articles about Obama, but written in Chinese. They transliterate Obama's name into Chinese so that the information can be read and understood by those who read Chinese. That does not change Obama's name. 奥巴马 is STILL Obama's name. Just written in Chinese instead of English.

This is Obama's name in Russian: Обама

in Arabic: أوباما

in Hindu: ओबामा

in Japanese: 小浜

in Korean: 오바마

Again, it is only common sense to use letters that people know and understand when communicating in written form. Otherwise, the words would appear to be gibberish for those unfamiliar with that language.

God, the First Transliterator of Jesus' Name

Please consider this.

The name for the Son of God in the original New Testament Scriptures (God's inspired word) IS the Greek word Iesous!

If it is so critical to God that His Son's name ONLY be represented in Hebrew, then why did He allow these Scriptures to be recorded originally in Greek? Why did He not represent His Son's written name in Hebrew, even if the rest of the text was documented in Greek?

Was Jesus a Hebrew? Yes.

Was He given a Hebrew name? Yes.

Yet and still, when the God of Glory chose to document the words of His Son and the Scriptures relevant to the new covenant, He "inspired" the men to write that name as "Iesous".

Some even claim that the name "Jesus" came from the Greek word for Zeus so that people who call upon this name are actually worshiping a false god. This is absurd and just plain false. The etymology of the word Iesous has nothing to do Zeus. They are completely different words. More importantly, why would God Himself allow His Son's name to be that of a false god?

When people want to talk about "corrupt" translations/transliterations of Jesus' name, they need to first point their finger at God. This is not the act of some conspiracy by man to hide God's identity or the result of some errant monk. God HIMSELF inspired the Scriptures to be documented in Greek and at the same time allowed the representation of His Son's Hebrew name in Greek as Iesous. The New Testament would be used to bring in the Gentiles and as such, God used the global language of the day in order to reach them.

Why would God allow this name to be documented in that manner if the salvation and power associated with that "name" was dependent upon a specific rendering of Hebrew letters? 

The Real Authority of God

The fact that God inspired the transliteration of His Son's name when the Scriptures were originally penned PROVES that the power of God's Son is NOT limited to a Hebrew rendering of His name.

Otherwise, God inspired His Son's name as recorded in the Scriptures to be documented erroneously.

Many in the "scared name movement" contend that unless you use the Hebrew name for God's Son, you cannot be saved and are worshiping a false god. To support this, they will often point to Acts 4:12:

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Yet not only is this a false accusation, it shows a lack of understanding about the authority of God. First, let's talk a little bit about the name of God's Son.

The Scriptures say:

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call HIS NAME JESUS [Iesous]: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call HIS NAME EMMANUEL [Emmanouēl], which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:23

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful [pele'], Counsellor [ya`ats], The mighty God [gibbowr 'el], The everlasting Father [`ad 'ab], The Prince of Peace [sar shalowm]." Isaiah 9:6

If we are going to be a stickler for God accepting only one name for His Son, then which one should we use?

Further, there is disagreement even among Hebrew scholars regarding what the ACTUAL pronunciation of Jesus' name in Hebrew would be. (Yahushua, Yehoshua, Yashua, Yeshu, etc.).

What these individuals fail to understand is that "coming in" or "calling upon" the name of Jesus is about belonging to Him and not an exercise in linguistic gymnastics. You impart your name (identity) to those who belong to you, i.e. those in your family.

The word "name" in Acts 4:12 is the Greek word onoma which means, "the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds...". The word "name" is representative of the personhood of Jesus Christ, not a specific arrangement of alphabet letters. It references all who Jesus is including His authority, His will, and His divine nature.

If connecting to Jesus was just about using the letters from the Hebrew alef bet, then why did the following happen?

"Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded." Acts 19:13-16

These Jews would certainly have used the Hebrew name when calling on Jesus. Yet, the use of this name was not recognized by these demon spirits. These men had no power over demons, even when using the Hebrew name of God's Son. It is not because there was something lacking in His Hebrew name. It is because that is not how the power of God is bestowed.

Psalms 138:2 says, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

As high as the name of God is exalted, He exalts His word even higher than that. And yes, that includes the New Testament "word" that was inspired by Him to be written in Greek.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." I Peter 1:23

Those who are born again through faith in the Son of God as revealed in His word are made agents of God's authority by virtue of their place in Him.

"For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch." Mark 13:34

This is the name (authority) under which man are to operate. Walking in submission to the Living God so that it is Jesus Christ Himself who lives within us and works through us.

People will make an idol out of anything. They get hold of one thing (whether true or not) and use it as a means to feel "exclusive", pretending that they are set-apart, holy, or more informed than others. It is a show of holiness and righteousness devoid of any divine substance or Scriptural validity. If there is a conspiracy to hide the name of God's Son, it is certainly reflected in this effort to deny the name of Jesus.

I am not against people who want to use the name Yeshua. My point is that we must stop swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat. The most important thing is to be reconciled to God by submitting to His Son Jesus Christ so that we not only know Him, but are known by Him.

Jesus saved me. Jesus renewed me. Jesus delivered me. Jesus healed me. Jesus walks with me everyday. I will not start denying His name now because some do not like the way God decided to document His name in the Scriptures. Now is not the time to get drawn away by every wind of doctrine. Hold fast to what is true and place your faith in Jesus Christ.


  1. You are in error in regards to his name. Yahuwshua is name and the scripture says the lying pen of the scribes think to make my people forget my name.That fact that his name is the only name every changed is prophecy. Names don't change. Every other word does but names do not no matter what language you speak.Also the scriptures were written in aramaic with the name yahuwshua paul's writtings had lesous in them.

  2. Hello Anonymous,

    Clearly this is your belief, and you are entitled to it. However historical manuscripts show that the oldest copies of the New Testament were in Greek. Further, Paul's work is also Scripture. So, I am not sure why you separate Paul's work from the others.

  3. You said: If it is so critical to God that His Son's name ONLY be represented in Hebrew, then why did He allow these Scriptures to be recorded originally in Greek? Why did He not represent His Son's written name in Hebrew, even if the rest of the text was documented in Greek?
    In fact God did not *originally* record the NT in Greek. There is plenty of evidence (Peshitta primacy) that the NT was originally written in Hebrew characters but in Aramaic, and Greek was translated from it in the second or third centuries. So God DID record Yeshua's name in the Hebrew alphabet.

  4. Hi Hebrew Student,

    "Plenty of evidence"? That is a bit of an overstatement.

    There are some Aramaic references in Scripture, but there are also references for Greek. The fact is that many languages were present at the time of Jesus' life. This is why John 19:19 has the sign of Jesus' head being portrayed in multiple languages.

    "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." John 19:19

    We also know that numerous OT references in the NT are quoted from the Greek translation (the Septuagint). So the Scriptures themselves support that usage of the Greek language in Scripture was common at the time of His life.

    However, I really have no bone in this fight outside of addressing the idolatrous way some are treating specific renderings of the Lord's name. I value and appreciate the Hebrew culture & people, but speaking Hebrew (even for just the names of biblical figures) is not a requirement for salvation.

    If God inspired even one New Testament writer to document Scriptures in Greek originally, then whole "sacred name" argument falls apart.

  5. Zec.6:11-12 Clearly states the name of the messiah thru prophecy. Now if the NT was written in Greek by the disciples then Acts 7:45 would not have been in error as it is in any KJV bible. Luke would not have mistaken "Jesus" for Joshua, but someone translating from Hebrew to Greek would have made this mistake Since they were taking out the original name anyways and putting Jesus in its place or Ieousus. Therefore the NT could not have been written in Greek.

  6. First, "the evil letter 'j'" is a right reference, for "the church OF england(pagan cathloicism at the time)" had it's wicked, bloody hand in such an invention ;-(

    Appreciated your comment cdup1072.

    And there are two more verses that bear witness to a Hebrew to pagan greek translation.

    Hebrews 4:8 and Colossians 4:11 both of which translate what should have been "joshua" as the "imag"ined pagan catholic/christian 'jesus'.

  7. LDM, it has naught to do with a "sacred name" but most definitely has to do with Truth.

    And those who have received "the love of The Truth" realize that pagan catholicism and her harlot christian daughters have most certainly perverted Truth, and that because of them "The Way of Truth is evil spoken of" ;-(

    And Truth is The Messiah's G-D given birth name was not, is not, and never will be 'jesus'.......

    In Truth 'jesus' is the transliteration of the pagan latin catholic 'iesus' into english and not the pagan greek 'iesous'. So who gave the translators authority to transliterate a pagan latin word into english rather than transliterating from the pagan greek manuscript?

    Now if one would choose to use the english version of The Messiah's G-D given Hebrew birth name, which i believe they should, then that would be Joshua(i prefer Y'shua).......

    Why use a name that has no Hebrew root, and that has been transliterated from the greek to latin and then to english?

    Especially since The Messiah's G-D given birth name was Hebrew.......

    Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(confusion and every evil work) that is of this world and it's systems of religion, for "the WHOLE(not just a portion) world is under the control of the evil one" (1JN5:19)indeed and Truth.......

  8. Hi Cdup1072,

    You indicate that the KJV uses the name of Jesus in place of the name for Joshua in some instances.

    The reason for this is reflected in Zechariah 6:11-12, as you noted. Namely that the names "Joshua" and "Jesus" are both derived from the same Hebrew root.

    Joshua was in fact so named because he is a type of Christ as a deliverer of God's people; offering a physical representation of what Jesus does for us in the spiritual.

    So, the appearance of the name "Jesus" in place of "Joshua" in these texts confirms the reality that these names come from the same root.

    The name "Jesus" is not some fraudulent interloper assuming an improper place in Scripture whenever the Son of God is named. It is a valid reference to the name of the Messiah as seen by its linkage with the name Joshua (the same name).

    Does this prove that the original New Testament was written in Aramiac? No, not at all.

    By Jesus' day, the Jews had created a Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) which was commonly used and is mostly quoted in the New Testament.

    The name for Joshua in the Septuagint is Iesous. The same name (remember, they are the same) would have been rendered as Iesous for Jesus by Luke (who was not Jewish). This is supported by the earliest existing NT manuscripts - which are all Greek.

    No one "mistook" Joshua for Jesus. As documented in the original text (and as confirmed by the text you quoted) the names are the same.

    How is using the same name an indication of mistranslated conspiracy - being that they had the same name?

  9. The "truth" according to whom? To ElderChild.

    You can say it shouldn't be so and come up with every reason why you believe it so, but if it cannot be supported by the Scriptures, then it is simply the wisdom of men.

    God chose to document the NT in Greek. He chose to document His Son's names as Iesous and the idolatry of the catholic church has nothing to do with that.

    Those who take issue with it must argue their case against God Himself.

  10. Greetings LDM,
    I appreciate your zeal to prove all things, holding fast that which is good. I would only caution you to not "throw the baby out with the bath water" in regards to the names. There is much that I disagree with concerning the "Sacred Name Movement" and their methods of establishing truth. I acknowledge that there is no linguistic connection between "Jesus" and Zeus. I am also aware of other erroneous approaches that this movement takes to try to prove the truth of the names. That being said, I do believe that the original names of the Father and the Son must be used if we are to call ourselves being led by the Spirit into all truth. I do not need a "Sacred Name Movement" to believe this anymore than I need a "Pentecostal Movement" to believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which I believe in whole-heartedly.
    I beseech you to try to look at this more objectively. There are truths that I am walking in now that I refused to walk in in times past because I was offended in the people that proclaimed them. I hope this helps. Shalom.

  11. Hello Brother Don,

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts here.

    You say, "I do believe that the original names of the Father and the Son must be used if we are to call ourselves being led by the Spirit into all truth."

    You are correct in that we do not need any "movement" to define Biblical truth, for we have the Scriptures and His Holy Spirit. The issue is that there is nothing in Scripture which indicates we must use an "original name" for the Father and Son. Contrarily, there are multiple names given for both, which would seem to dispel any contention of there being only one name He receives.

    Further, even Hebrew scholars argue about what the true pronunciation of the "original name" for such is also not given in the Scriptures. It was not even permitted to speak the name God's name for fear of profaning it, hence the tetragrameton.

    We cannot take areas where Scripture is silent and create doctrine of men as commands from God. When you say that we must use the "original names" in order to be led by the Spirit into all truth, then you are doing just that.

    I too do not question your zeal in this matter. There is much beauty to be seen and learned from all of God's words, including the original Hebrew. Further, I am not dissuading people from using Yeshua or even trying to get people to use Jesus; I have used both. I am saying that all of it is insignificant because what matters is that we belong to Him. As such, we then are in Him, having His righteousness/identity and walking in His name/authority.

    When we make extra-Scriptural laws or commands, it is always a snare, even when done with the best of intentions.

    May God bless and keep you.

  12. Greetings Again LDM,

    Please allow me to clarify myself when I said that I believe that the original names of the Father and the Son must be used if we are to call ourselves being led by the Spirit into all truth. I believe that the Most High is going to restore all things before the return of His Son. Much has been been destroyed over the past 1700 or so years because of the traditions of men, and in these last days, as it says in Daniel, many are running to and fro and knowledge is being increased. There were things that Daniel was told to seal up into a book until the time of the end. That being said, allow me to say this. When the Most High said unto Moses, "This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations"( Ex. 3:15 ) I do not believe that He ever intended for that to be altered. Likewise, when Peter said that there is "none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" ( Acts 4:12 ), I do not believe that the Most High ever intended for that to be altered. I believe that the alterations came by way of man and not the Father. Whether they came by accident or conspiracy, we cannot deny that there have been alterations. If we are to be repairers of the breach and restorers of the paths to dwell in, we cannot follow the multitudes who say "hey, things have changed, let's just live with it." I believe that we need to make a sincere effort to find out where we got off track and get back to the old paths. Shalom.

  13. Hello again Bro Don,

    You have stated a lot of what you "believe", but that still doesn't address the fact that Scripture is silent in the areas you have established belief.

    A couple of verses about God's name are tied together with a revealing of hidden knowledge is a connection only made in your mind, not in Scripture. If it were not so, you would be able to point specifically to such Scriptures and not simply continue to profess what you believe.

    As already mentioned, God has - in His own sovereign will - given Himself many names in Scripture. He has also chosen to inspire the NT to be originally documented in Greek. All of which disproves that He only receives one name. Such an assertion is a product of man, not God.

    Information has been shared, and God by His Spirit is still the One who leads us into all truth. I am content to leave this discussion there.

    Thank you again.

    "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy WORD above ALL thy name." Psalm 138:2

  14. Can someone please explain to me what this is? I don't really understand this article.

    Thanks and God Bless

  15. Hi Jesus Freak,

    Essentially it means the following:

    * There is no "one" name by which we must refer to God's Son in order to be saved (i.e. Jesus, Yeshua, Yehoshua...)

    * Coming in the "name" of someone else (including God) means that we are walking in and carrying that person's authority.

    * Know God and be known by Him so as not to become legalistic about things God cares nothing about.

    God Bless

  16. Jesus Freak, the following may help you too. Christ White did a better job than I in breaking this down.

  17. Two of the scriptures used in this article (Matthew 1:21 & 1:23) are from one of the two books of the New Testament that were originally written in Aramaic, not Greek. (Hebrews was the other book). So the author saying that God transliterated the name Yahshua into Iesous in these scriptures is erroneous. These books were later translated into Greek, but not originally written in that language. The remainder of the New Testament books were originally written in Greek.

    1. Hi Javidan1253.

      I won't get into a senseless debate about the purported primacy of Aramaic, even as it refers to the books of the Bible you have mentioned. I simply want to draw your attention to how trrelevant such a comment is to this topic.

      Even allowing your assumption here to be correct, if the word "Jesus" is documented in the New Testament any where else, is it not the Lord who has done so? If there is even one instance of the name of God's Son being written in another language, then God indeed is the first transliterator of the name.

      It is indeed possible to be blind to the forest for looking at the trees.

  18. The Savior is perfect without spot, wrinkle or blemish. His name should reflect the same qualities and attributes. The name Jesus is Greek,latinized English which is a mongrelization thus making the name Jesus polluted, corrupted and defiled. Therefore the name Jesus ls wholly unsuitable and unbefitting for a perfect Savior. Thus the name Jesus is false doctrine and ties into the great lie of 2Thess 2:11-12 especially when we see it was the Romans (Greeks) (RCC) who translated/transliterated the holy writings.

    1. Hi Betty,

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The basis for truth is always found in Scripture, not what we think should or should not be. God desires for all to be saved and for the Gospel to be published across te world; that includes all peoples in all languages. Don't get sidetracked by false, legalistic, and exclusive doctrine such as Hebrew only names which has nothing to do salvation.

  19. I must say that I agree with Bro. Don on this issue. I have read several posts about the letter J and The Name Jesus on Facebook. So, my question is this: if His name was not Jesus, then why is that name glorified?

    I understand your argument that English was not invented at the time of The Savior's birth, but couldn't the name have been translated more accurately? I want to call on the right name. Why take the untruth and fill my spirit with it?

    I just seems like there is a conspiracy/cover-up of the truth. You argue scripture this and scripture that, but how do we know it's really scripture? The oldest bible in the world is said to be an Ethiopian text that has been heavily guarded for centuries. So, how do we know that the KJ bible line up with The Word in the oldest Bible?

    I just want the TRUTH.

    1. Hi Seeking,

      If you want truth, then you need a person, not a Bible version.

      "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

      Jesus Himself is the Truth and the only way to find Him is by the Holy Spirit.

      "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

      "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." John 15:26

      "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:13

      Temporal things may reflect God, but they will never be God; they will at some point pass away. Did you know that Jesus has a new name since returning to Heaven?

      "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." Revelation 3:12

      Man would like to think that it is near impossible to know God's word, but that is because he doesn't want to obey it. Therefore he looks for excuses not to. Yet, the Father has promised to preserve His word for man throughout the ages so that we may know Him.

      They Word is Truth - Part 4

      Don't let people trip you up on irrelevant minutia, making a mountain out of a mole hill. The Lord is not concerned about teaching you a lesson in grammar or even a lesson in Hebrew. He is concerned with saving our dirty, sin-filled souls.

      Repent of your sins, believe on Him, and pray to be sent the Holy Spirit so that you will know truth. The only way for you to know the truth is to know and be known by Jesus Christ so that you are led by His Spirit. Make the Son of God the focus of your seeking and He will shows you all that is true.


In an effort to reduce the amount of spam received, Anonymous posts will no longer be accepted. Comments are still moderated and will appear once approved.

If you have a personal message to relay, please use the "Contact Us" form at the top of the blog. Thank you!