Well, apparently these people know:
But - absurdly - they don't know why He is usually called
Here is what their web-site says about the Holy Name:
"Although this name is not at all difficult for English speakers to pronounce, the King James translators of the Bible chose to take his name from the Greek New Testament, in which book he was called Iesous. This name, for reasons which are not entirely clear, became Jesus in England."
The reasons are entirely clear. The language of the Christian Church became Latin after the Roman Empire became Christian.
Any simpleton knows this, surely?
And the Latin for Yeshua or Iesous is Jesus.
The English equivalent is Joshua. So if they want an English translation they should call our Lord by the name of Joshua Christ.
But they don't.
They call Him Jesus Christ just as we do in the Roman Catholic Church.
Yet another example of the simple truth that Christianity is Roman and Catholic, that the Roman Catholic Church gave to the whole world the first message of Christianity and that is why the Latin version of our Lord's name is the name that is universally used.
The name, as I said in my last post, means
Yeshua means "saviour" and Moshiach means "Anointed of the Lord" which is often rendered "Messiah" or "Messias".
In Greek, the language of the Septuagint and the New Testament, it is Iesous Christos and in Latin, the language of the Roman Empire and of the Church, it is JESUS CHRISTUS.
The word "Chrism" has the same root since the Oil of Chrism is used for anointing.
How, therefore, can these people say that the Holy Name of Jesus is used in England for "reasons which are not clear"?
There are none so blind as those who will not see...