My research into the Council of Nicaea called by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, shows they Council of Nicaea voted to change the name to iesus kristus by a vote of 161 for & 157 against. Again, why did they vote to change the Name of The Messiah?
5
-
3Do you have evidence that this occurred?– MaryCommented Aug 17 at 0:48
-
Constantine’s intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under 1 deity.names of 53 gods (submitted). (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S.L. MacGuire’s translation, Salisbury, 1922, .....) After 15 months, Constantine returned to (whittle the names down to) Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) ... A new god was proclaimed and “officially” ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). Want more?– MISTERG2uCommented Aug 17 at 1:45
-
3Some people spoke Hebrew and some spoke Greek and some spoke Latin. I speak English and I use the name 'Jesus Christ'. There is no 'magic' in a particular arrangement of letters or phonetic sounds. On the day of Pentecost everyone heard the Gospel (containing the name of Jesus Christ) . . . . in their own tongue. The question lacks research and has no real focus and I have voted to close it.– Nigel JCommented Aug 17 at 3:31
-
1Welcome to SE-C. Please see the Tour and the Help (below) as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. Please also see the archive of 17,000 question/answer contributions as to how this plays out in practice.– Nigel JCommented Aug 17 at 3:35
-
4"My research" — The question needs to show your research. In particular, please edit in an explicit quotation about the vote, and a link to where we can find the documents.– Ray ButterworthCommented Aug 17 at 14:38
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Tl;dr The claim referenced by the question misunderstands linguistics, uses fraudulent sources, and ignores actual historical records of the council of Nicaea.
The premise of the question is wrong. His name in Hebrew is יֵשׁוּעַ (Yeshua). In Greek this becomes Ἰησοῦς (Iesous) because the languages aren't phonetically equivalent - for example, Greek doesn't have the "sh" phoneme. This was the standard Greek transliteration of the name Yeshua, we see the same in the writings of Josephus, predating the council of Nicaea. The Hebrew title of Yeshua is משיח (Mashiach), which means "the anointed one" (David is also called "mashiach" and refers to Saul by this title). Greek "Christos" comes from "chrio", meaning "to anoint", and also means "the anointed one". In other words, nobody "changed" the name, they transliterated the name and translated the title to their own language. Incidentally, my own name changes depending what language I'm speaking, because the languages I speak have different phonemes, but it doesn't stop being my name.
The sources you're citing are suspect or outright forged.
- God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S.L. MacGuire’s translation - God's Book of Eskra is a book from the Oahspe, a "new Bible" published in 1882 by an American dentist, which he claimed to have been produced by spirits through automatic writing. The Oahspe was written in English, and Prof. S.L. MacGuire’s translation does not exist. It appears that the professor was simply invented to make the book sound older and more authoritative. This is a very shaky source (I haven't verified if it says what it's alleged to).
- Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325 - the Historia Ecclesiastica exists, and you can find the entire text online. However, you won't find there what your comment claims. In fact, you won't find anything about Nicaea at all, and that's hardly surprising because Historia Ecclesiastica was completed at latest in 324, before the council of Nicaea (your source tries to obscure this by citing the date as "c.325").
- Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618 - an obscure edition of a fifth-century account of the council that has never been translated to a language other than Greek or Latin. No information about the reference is given, no quote in the original, page number, etc., which for the average person makes this reference both unfalsifiable and unverifiable (though there are people who have read it and say it recounts the Arian controversy, and nothing about creating a new god).
When you're doing your research, be a little less trusting of blogs on the internet and try to look at primary sources a bit more.
-
1@MISTERG2u you're still misunderstanding translation. "The first rule is to not change the name" - not quite. The rule is you don't translate the name, you do transcribe it, otherwise we'd have to write יֵשׁוּעַ. Transcription may change the pronunciation because languages are different. Iesous is a transcription of Yeshua. Of course it doesn't mean "Yah saves" In Greek, because it's not a Greek word, it's a Greek transcription of a Hebrew word meaning "Yah saves". Commented Aug 17 at 19:43
-
1"Iesous means Hail Zeus" - no it does not. "Hail" would be χαίρε (chaire), and σοῦς is not the same as Ζεύς. And once again, "Iesous" as the Greek transcription of "Yeshua" is attested long before Nicaea, including non-Christian authors. The idea that Jesus means Hail Zeus might sound plausible to a monolingual English speaker but it's a fantasy based on nothing more than a vague phonetic similarity in English. Commented Aug 17 at 19:57
-
1How can one trust primary sources - I don't care if you trust them. But your source makes claims about those primary sources. For example, it attributes the claim that Constantine returned and narrowed the list to five to Eusebius. Well, you can find the works of Eusebius online. Find where he wrote about that, and you'll prove me wrong. But if he didn't say that, then your source is lying to you (and if they're lying about that, what else are they lying about?) If you don't trust primary sources, you have to trust secondary sources even less. Commented Aug 17 at 20:06
-
Come on people, use common sense. I trust he head of the Hebrew language dept. @ Washington University who told me how to say & spell zeus in Hebrew. If the Hebrew language says the word spelled zion uhz sep is equivalent to zeus & is definitely pronounced zoos & definitely means the Greek god zeus & Yashuwah is Latin, Greek, English & most Romance languages phonetic pronunciation of the Name we call Joshua, and Yahshuwah means "Yah Saves" in Hebrew. The sounds are self evident. The Council of Nicaea created a pagan god's name & people have been persecuted for using Yahshuwah. That's Truth. Commented Aug 21 at 3:46
-
@MISTERG2u the Hebrew pronunciation of Zeus is irrelevant to the Greek name Iesous. In Greek "sous" and "Zeus" are not the same. "Yahshuwah" cannot be the Greek pronunciation because Greek did not have a "sh" sound. The Council of Nicaea did not create the name, we have NT manuscripts from the 2nd century with the name Iesous (Ryland Papyrus P52, look it up). Commented Aug 21 at 4:03