what is Jesus real name? the name they used to call him during his time?
343028
Yashua ben Yoseph (Joshua, the son of Joseph)\n\nYashua {Hebrew-Aramaic} => Iesu(s) {Latin-Greek} => Jesus
416271
Bar-Abbas,  according to tradition, had for his first name "Jesus." His name means, "The Savior, Son of the Father". The Romans thought it good to offer them a pick of the 2 Jesus' "The Savior, King of the Jews" or the other. The irony of the two Jesus' fits well with the story. A Jesus who was of the Father, or One Who would be their King. Some historians bear out this tale, but it has been sent to "Tradition," for lack of Biblical confirmation.
92528
In Latin it is Iesus or Jesus (there is no J sound in Latin though and the two are pronunced the same). That comes from the Greek Ιησούς (Iesus), which is what the New Testament was written in. He and his disciples, and basically all of the Jews at the time, spoke Aramaic, and in that language, he was called יֶשוּע (Yeshua), which is derived from the Hebrew name ֶהוֹֹשֻע (Yehoshua), usually translitterated as Joshua.
600542
The proper form of baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Jesus designated in Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."  The clear command of Jesus is to baptize this way.  But, if that is so, then why do we see so many instances in the New Testament where people were baptized "in Jesus' name"? \n\nThe reason they were baptizing "in the name of Jesus" is not because it was a formula, but because the phrase, "in the name of" means "in the authority of.  We can see proof of this in Acts 4:7-10,\n\n"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, 'By what power, or in what name, have you done this?' 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health.'"\n\n     The Jews asked "by what power, or in what name, have you done this?"  Peter answers and says that it was in the name of Jesus, that they had healed.  In other words, "in the name of Jesus" means that it is by the power and authority found in Christ.\n\nThe only bible that disputes Matthew 28:19 is the New World Translation bible. That Bible was mis-translated and changed by the Jw cult. No bible scholar or language expert takes that bible serious.
742732
allah knows the best..\nbut in my opinion the time is very close that jesus will return but please christian when he comes back dont shout\n\nJESUS JESUS JESUS\n\ncaz he never heard this name before in his life\n\ntry this \n\nESSA ESSA ESSA\n\nlol jesus is not the real name??? do u know that??\n\n............
800281
This is what i learned: \n\n"Yeshua is the original Aramaic name.  Yeshua is a Hebrew name which has been transliterated into Greek as Iesous (IhsouV: pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"). The English "Jesus" comes from the Latin transliteration of the Greek name into the Latin Iesus.\n\n Now Greek has no "y" sound, but the Latin "i" is both an "i" and a "j" (i.e., it can have a consonantal force in front of other vowels), the latter of which is properly pronounced like the English "y" (which explains the German Jesu, "YAY-su")That is why we spell Jesus as we do, taking it straight from Latin, but we pronounce the name with a soft "j" sound because that is what we do in English with the consonantal "j".
1050596
You are correct that early Christians used Greek translations, which is why they made rather rediculous errors like misinterpreting Nazarite to mean 'someone from Nazareth'.  Is any other proof even really needed that Jesus was not a Jewish Rabbi?
1016380
Jews! Jesus was a Jew. \nChristianity came from a mix of Judiasm and Paganism...
1060567
The gospel accounts sometimes use the disciples name, and sometimes use their surname (or appellation).\n\nBelow is a list of the 12 disciples, with their Name listed first, then their surname/appellate name:\n\n   1. Simon//Peter or cephas\n   2. James (the elder) // --none--\n   3. John (the beloved disciple) // --none-- (although BOTH James and John we also called "sons of thunder" or "Boanerges")\n   4. Andrew (brother of simon) // --none--\n   5. Philip // --none--\n   6. Nathanael // Bartholomew\n   7. Thomas // Didymous\n   8. Matthew // Levi\n   9. James (the younger, the less) // --none--\n  10. Jude // Thaddeus\n  11. Simon // The Zealot\n  12. Judas // Iscariot
785143
Jesus wanted his disciples to know who they thought he was. Some thought he was John the Baptist, others Elija. He then asked Peter directly who he, personally thought he was. I think Jesus was testing his disciples to see how much faith they had in him or if they truly belived he was the Son of God.
1064361
I'll try to keep it short.\nJesus was born in Bethlehem.  Joseph and Mary went to register their names under the order of the Romans, as it was predicted in the Bible that Jesus will be born in Bethlehem.  Shortly after his birth, they had to run to Egypt to protect Jesus's life, for it was ordered that every first born boy to be killed, that included Jesus.  A few years later, they went back, and they lived in the city Nazareth, hence the name Jesus of Nazareth. \nNo contradictions.  They moved to Egypt not to Nazareth to protect his life.  If they didn't do that, you and I would have had nothing to be chatting about, at least in the religion section.  Think about it.  \n\nDon't worry about it, our religion stood the worst.  Christians were feed to the lions for believing in Christ,  at a certain time it was forbidden to be even a Christian, and now, many wants to show the lies that is supposedly in the Bible.  Go ahead, do your best, or your worse!  maybe we both can end up learning from each others.  You don't have to be a Christian, and I don't have to stop being one, but we at the very least at will end up respecting each others.\n\nMap 37. Towns and Territories of the Palestine Area in the Time of Jesus \nhttp://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN092MAPS2.htm\n\nI hope that helped.  Peace to you and ALL
718764
Jesus Christ\n\nMic 5:2  But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.\n\nMic 5:2 - But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,.... But though Jerusalem should be besieged and taken, and the land of Judea laid waste, yet, before all this should be, the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem, of which this is a prophecy, as is evident from Mat_2:4; the place is called by both the names it went by, to point it out the more distinctly, and with the greater certainty, Gen_35:19; the former signifies "the house of bread", and a proper place for Christ to be born in, who is the bread of life; and it has the name of the latter from its fruitfulness, being a place of pasture, and as we find it was at the time of our Lord's birth; for near it shepherds were then watching over their flocks; and it is here added, to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos_19:15; from which tribe the Messiah was not to come, but from the tribe of Judah; and in which this Bethlehem was, and therefore called, by Matthew, Bethlehem in the land of Judah; as it appears this was, from Rth_1:1.
1151634
Jesus \n\ndetails below!
277166
Actually, Jesus is said to have been born approximately in the year which we now know as 6 B.C., or B.C.E.\n\nThe following paragraphs are used without permission:\n\nIn the 248th year of the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne), Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christum Natum", or "before the birth of Christ"), and assigned AD 1 to the following year—thereby establishing the system of numbering years from the birth of Jesus: Anno Domini (which translates as "in the year of our Lord"). This system made the then current year 532, and almost two centuries later it won acceptance and became the established calendar in Western civilization due to its championing by the Venerable Bede.\n\nHowever, based on a lunar eclipse that Josephus reports shortly before the death of Herod the Great (who plays a major role in Matthew's account), as well as a more accurate understanding of the succession of Roman Emperors, Jesus' birth would have been some time before the year 4 BC/BCE. Having fewer sources and being further removed in time from the authors of the New Testament, establishing a reliable birth date now is particularly difficult.\n\nPlease take time to select the best answer.
917725
Nothing is really known about Jesus, including whether he actually existed.  All the stuff written about him was written decades after he supposedly died.
1030309
I think that was Jesus...I could be wrong...I'll google it later
563893
they use a lot names from the bible.\nlike John, Paul,David,Mary,Ruth, etc,etc