Is it ok to call the messiah Jesus???

Is the english name Jesus pagan?

Is it ok to call the Hebrew messiah by a non Hebrew name?

And above all, WHERE DID THE BIG DEAL OF THE MESSIAHS NAME FIRST ORIGINATE?

Below are the answers to all 3 questions.

In  Neh.  8:17,  Joshua’s  name  is  100%  identical  to  the  name  which  today’s  Messianic Jews use for the Messiah, Yeshua (uwvy). Strong’s confirms this pronunciation, and tells us that  there  were  ten  Israelites  in  the  Bible  who  bore  this  name  (#3442).  Therefore  the shortening  of  Yehoshua  to  Yeshua predates  the  Christian  era  by  at  least 500 years, and cannot be the result of a Jewish conspiracy to hide the Savior’s true name.4 To claim that the shortened form Yeshua is the result of a Jewish conspiracy is to ignore the facts of history and the facts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The form Yeshua existed for several hundred years before the Messiah was even born. Even in the pre-Christian Septuagint, we see the Greek form IHSOUS (Yesous) in the title of the Book of Joshua. (This is also proof that Yesous has no connection to the pagan god Zeus.) Why  is  the  Yahshua  form  used  by no one but Sacred Name believers and people who have been influenced by Sacred Name believers? Probably because no such name exists in the Hebrew Bible and, to my knowledge, no such name exists in any extra-Biblical Hebrew literature.  It  appears  that  Dr.  Ben-Gigi  is  correct  when  he  says  that  people  invented  the name Yahshuato fit their theology. In one popular booklet published by a well-known Sacred Name organization, the anonymous author makes this statement: "Most reference works agree with Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the NT statement on page 284, which states that the name Yahoshua was shortened after the exile to the short form Yahshua.” This statement makes it sound like Kittel uses the forms Yahoshua and Yahshua. I went to the library and looked at this page in Kittel’s. The words YahoshuaYahshua do not appear even one time on this page. This can be verified by going to a library and looking up this page. (It’s in Volume III.) If your library does not have Kittel’s, I can send a photocopy of this page to any skeptics.

Daniel botkin http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/Name.html

In March 1937 Elder Dodd started publishing THE FAITH Magazine. At first it seemed the purpose was to let the brethren KNOW exactly how he believed and stood on THE FEASTS, FOR I have a copy of the FIRST "THE FAITH" in which he explained how he stood on this subject, but Vol. 1, No. 1 did not contain a date. I have the July Aug. 1937 FAITH, Vol. 1, No. III which of course is dated.

Not long after starting the publication of this paper someone (I did know who, but do not have that certain "FAITH" now) sent in a clipping about the Saviour's Name, which, as Elder Dodd explained that he even thought sounded a bit strange, but he published it as a little FILLER in THE FAITH (for he himself was still using Jesus, Lord, God, etc.) and it really caused a STIR, i.e., different ones began to write Elder Dodd and inquire what he meant by this. And asked, "What does it actually mean?" So different ones who looked into this subject started to write.

Here is the statement, "It is interesting that throughout his life Jesus Christ never heard himself called by that name. 'Jesus' was the Greek word for the Hebrew 'Joshua' or 'Jeshua'; and 'Christ' or 'Christus' was the Greek word for 'Messiah' or 'Redeemer', page 241, Man's Great Adventure, by Edwin W. Pahlow, professor of the teaching of history, Ohio State University." This quotation was sent to Elder Dodd by someone in Michigan, which resulted in Elder Dodd's beginning to use the form Jehovah for the Creator at first, also Jahovah and Yahovah and Yah-oshuah and Jahoshua in the October 1938 FAITH magazine. This edition contained an article by A.B. Traina, "What Is His Son's Name?" in which he used Jahovah for the Father and Jah-oshuah for the Son. In this same issue of THE FAITH was an article by Wm. Bishop and John Briggs, THE KING JAMES' VERSION REGARDING SACRED NAMES, in which they quoted from The Empatic Diaglott, the King James Version, Encyclopedia Britannica, Smith's Bible Dictionary, Webster's New International Dictionary, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, concerning the different forms of the Creator's Name that had been used, also different forms for the FOUR Hebrew letters used for the Name, such as IHVH, JHVH, JHWH, YHVH AND YHWH, JAHAVEH, JAHVAH, JAHVE, JAHVEH, YAHVE, YAHVEH, YAHWE, YAHWEH, etc.

The "Kadesh Name Society, 936 Campbell Street, Detroit, Michigan," was listed at the end of this article. I understand that this society started as early as 1936, maybe earlier. But in my discussion with Wm. (Bill) Bishop, Paul Penn a Jewish believer) and John Briggs, it seems that John Briggs and Paul Penn were the FIRST to pronounce and use the Name Yahshua, later Bill Bishop and Squire LaRue Cessna used it. But according to Bill Bishop and Paul Penn, John Briggs was considered FOUNDER of the Name Yahshua, especially. My information shows that John Briggs and Paul Penn met at A. B. Traina's in New Jersey in 1936 and John Briggs told Paul Penn that he privately prayed in the NAME "YAHSHUA". And in December of the same year Bill Bishop accepted the Name "Yahshua" from John Briggs, also in the same year and month Bill Bishop rented a church for 3 months so they could preach THE NAME. It seems that Bill Bishop was really the FIRST to go out and evangelize in the NAME Yahshua and that John Briggs really started or continued on in earnest to preach THE NAME, Feb. 13, 1937. From about 1938 onward especially, different Name groups using different spellings of the Name sprang up and began proclaiming the NAME as they saw it, so altogether all these groups have spread the NAME QUESTION all over the world. This subject began to be discussed and published by different church groups, Seventh Day Adventist, Methodist, Assembly of God, Baptist, Salvation Army, Pentecostal groups, etc. Our group in Fort Smith, Arkansas had a sign up, THE ASSEMBLY OF YAHWEH, though we taught and pronounced this, YAHVAH just as we use it now, having made the change to this spelling in 1950.

So to SUM UP what I have written, here are the names of the men who have had a part in Publishing the NAME MESSAGE which really started in the late 30's; John Briggs, Paul Penn, Bill Bishop, Squire LaRue Cessna, Joseph Owsinski, Marvin Gay, Elder Dodd, A. B. Traina, Arthur Barnes, J. D. Bagwell, J. A. McClain, L. F. Wilds, C. J. Ayers, W. L. Bodine, and L. D. Snow. And of course the wives of these ministers had a part, also Sis. Pearl T. Smith of Lansing, Michigan, who for a number of years was in charge of CAMP YAH near Lansing. Honor to whom honor is due. From the information I could gather, I feel John Briggs and Paul Penn should be given the honor of having started people to thinking on the Name, YAHSHUA. Elder Wm. (Bill) Bishop FIRST, together with John Briggs and Paul Penn, later joined by Squire LaRue Cessna, should be given the honor of being the FIRST to EVANGELIZE in the NAME "YAHSHUA" in the USA. To Elder C. O. Dodd should be given the credit for having reached the most people with the Name message while he was living, through the PRINTED PAGE, THE FAITH magazine, and tracts, preaching, etc., especially following when this message first started in the 30's. 

Next I feel that the conference the ministers of the Salem Church of God, 7th Day, held during the Camp-meeting at Galena, Kansas in 1936, really prepared the hearts of the ministers of the Church of God who later accepted THE NAME when it first began to be preached and published. It seems that credit should be given to Squire LaRue Cessna for having played a great part in teaching the full form of the Creator's Name, Jehovah, first, in the late 20's, and "YAHVAH" in the early 30's, also to Elder Israel Klar, a Jewish brother who knew and taught Hebrew. He wrote and printed the NAME in HEBREW, and "YAHVAH" in English. And I am happy for the part my wife and I have had in helping spread the NAME MESSAGE far and near, through the printed page and by traveling and preaching in more than 40 states and 6 foreign countries, after we began using THE NAME in 1943. HalleluYah! I do not feel that this brief history would be complete unless I gave some thought to the question, "Do you mean that THE NAME is no older than when those mentioned in this write-up first started using it in the 1930's?" It seems only just, that, for the wide acceptance of THE NAME during the 30's until now (1966), honor should go to Alexander MacWhorter of Yale University who published a book, THE MEMORIAL NAME, or YAVEH CHRIST, more than a HUNDRED YEARS ago, in 1857, and to the great Bible teacher and Hebrew scholar, F. L. Chapell, who delivered Six Lectures, NAMES OF THE DEITY. Dr. Chapell was Resident Instructor of the A. J. Gordon Missionary Training College, Boston, Massachusetts around 1900.

His wonderful lectures were published in THE STANDARD BEARER by John J. Scruby, Dayton, Ohio, Jan.-March 1911. We published most of these lectures in THE ELIYAH MESSENGER a few years ago. Next I feel that the conference the ministers of the Salem Church of God, 7th Day, held during the Camp-meeting at Galena, Kansas in 1936, really prepared the hearts of the ministers of the Church of God who later accepted THE NAME when it first began to be preached and published. It seems that credit should be given to Squire LaRue Cessna for having played a great part in teaching the full form of the Creator's Name, Jehovah, first, in the late 20's, and "YAHVAH" in the early 30's, also to Elder Israel Klar, a Jewish brother who knew and taught Hebrew. He wrote and printed the NAME in HEBREW, and "YAHVAH" in English Concerning THE NAME and this great scholar, Mr. McWhorter, I here quote the lectures of Dr. Chapell, "...But there has been, especially during the last fifty years (Remember these lectures were published Jan.-March 1911), a great interest, among the scholars, in this name. "I remember the stir that was caused in this country by the publication of a little book called "Yaveh Christ: or, The Memorial Name." The author, Mr. McWhorter, seemed to have been raised up just to do that work and to set the Christian world thinking on this subject." p. 50, THE STANDARD BEARER, Jan.-March 1911. Notice that Dr. Chapell speaks about the interest among scholars, in this NAME, during the last FIFTY YEARS from the time he delivered these lectures which, the best we can determine, was around 1900.

Notice also the STIR which the book, Yaveh Christ, or THE MEMORIAL NAME, published by Mr. McWhorter (1897) caused in THIS country, which really set people to THINKING ON THIS SUBJECT (Mal 3:16,17). This is why I said that I felt credit or honor should go to Mr. McWhorter for having paved (prepared) the way for people to accept and really start a WORLD WIDE NAME MOVEMENT, as was started in the 30's by the men mentioned in this writing, also by others in other places in America. In the book, THE MEMORIAL NAME by McWhorter he made mention of the FACT that THE NAME is derived from the Hebrew verb "havah" the OLD FORM of "hayah", meaning to EXIST, or THE EXISTING ONE, which EXACTLY AGREES with Strong and Young's Concordances on these verbs from which THE NAME is derived.

[This article has been reproduced from The Eliyah Messenger, May and June, 1966] EXCERPTS

http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/snowsacrednamehistory.html    

Treatise Against The New Ebionites Called Hebrew Israelites

By ssoreal

Those who claim to be the physical descendants of the ancient Hebrew people place an emphasis on the father as the one and only God, denying that the son and the holy spirit are also God, denying the Godhead being the Trinity. They falsely assert that the trinity is a later Roman Catholic doctrine created during the council of nicaea. Such a belief causes many in their "camps", a term they use to describe their gatherings, to only teach the places in scripture that support their heresies. But we have from the writings of the apostles and prophets that bring to light a very real trinity of which the 12 apostles and early christians teach.

Jesus himself calls him self "I AM". A phrase only used for God himself.

John 8:24
for if μη πιστεύσητε you should not believe ότιthat εγώ I ειμι AM, αποθανείσθε you shall die εν in ταις αμαρτίαις υμών your sins.

Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe
that I AM, you will die in your sins." 
(Unlocked literal bible translation)

so I say to you, that you die in your sins; for whenever you trust not that I AM, you die in your sins.
(Exegesis companion bible)

John 6:20 while walking on the water

ο δε And λέγει he says αυτοίς to them, εγώ I ειμι am he, μη φοβείσθε fear not!

And he says to them, I AM, fear not.
(Apostolic polyglot interlinear)

And he words to them, I AM! Awe not!
(Exegesis companion bible)

Matthew 14:27
ευθέως δε And immediately ελάλησεν [spoke αυτοίς to them ο Ιησούς Jesus], λέγων saying, θαρσείτε Courage! εγώ I ειμι am, μη do not φοβείσθε be fearful!

Immediately spoke to them, courage! I AM, do not be fearful.
(Apostolic polyglot)

But straightway Yah Shua speaks to them, wording, Courage! I AM; Awe not!
(Exegesis companion bible)

John 18:5-8
5  They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am." Judas, who betrayed him, was also standing with the soldiers. 6  So when he said to them, "I am," they went backward and fell to the ground.
 7  Then again he asked them, "Who are you looking for?" Again they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." 8  Jesus answered, "I told you that I am. So if you are looking for me, let these go."
(Unlocked literal bible translation)

They answer him, Yah Shua the Nazarene. Yah Shua words to them, I AM. And Yah Hudah, who betrays him, also stands with them: 6 so when he says to them, I AM, they go backward, and fall to to the ground. 7 So he asks them again, Whom seek you? And they say, Yah Shua the Nazarene. 8 Yah Shua answers, I say to you, I AM: so if you seek me, release these to go their way. 
(Exegesis companion bible)

Our Lord and savior declared plainly before his disciples, the Pharisees and the Roman soldiers of his deity as God. The "I AM". A description Moses knew all to well:

"Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13-14).

The beloved apostle Peter spoke of him as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ”
(2 Peter 1:1) And the apostle Paul also spoke of him as "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13), "the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
(Romans 9:5). He speaks of "God our savior" yet only lines later he says "Christ our savior" in his pastoral epistle to Titus.(Titus 3:4-6) Even the apostle Thomas who first doubted called him "My Lord and my God!" On the day he rose from the dead. (John 20:28) 

The epistle to the hebrews taught the believers there that Jesus was God from the psalms.

Of God the Psalm 102:25-27 states: 

Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end. (Psalm 102:25-27) 

Of Christ in Hebrews 1:8,10-12 the writer applies this same psalm to Jesus calling him God.

But unto the Son he says, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
(Hebrews 1:10-12) 

He calls the son God and acknowledges his throne. We speak of The Trinity as "The Godhead". A phrase found in the scriptures themselves, spoken by Paul, and written by lukes account of the church in The acts of the apostles. And Paul in his epistle to the Romans and the Colossians.

Acts17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 

Romans 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

This phrase literally means 1) a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks 2) spoken of the only and true God, trinity 2a) of Christ 2b) Holy Spirit 2c) the Father
- Thayer's Lexicon Greek New Testament Definitions

And our beloved apostle John reveals to us the very Godhead and calls them one. He says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.(1 John 5:7)

The church father Cyprian on his Treatise I On the Unity of the Church repeated this very passage from john in his own times from the 3rd century.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6835_2191388

"and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."[22]"

He died in 258AD

Jesus calls the father "the only true God" in his prayer in John 17:3. And yet in John 1:18 Jesus is called "The one and only God"  and in the Kjv Jesus is plainly called God, whom the father has declared and made known..

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only God, who is at the side of the Father, he has made him known.
John 1:18 ULB

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18 KJV

Many errendously refer to the holy spirit not as "He", but "it". Reducing the spirit of the Godhead to mere substance of created nature. Countless times Jesus refers to the holy spirit as "He" in John 16. In acts 5 Peter calls the holy spirit God in passing when rebuking those who lied to the holy spirit. The prophet isaiah recounts the rebellion of Israel against the holy spirit as they grieved him:

Isaiah 63:10
But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he became their enemy and fought against them.

And the psalms records the same event, yet calling the one grieved God.

Psalms 78:40-41
How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the barren regions(desert)! Again and again they challenged(tested) God and offended the Holy One of Israel.

The trinity explains why God made creation function the way it does. Because life is relational and communal. All is to connect. And remain in communion. Just like the Trinity. The father, son and holy spirit are all called God. Past, present and future are all called time. Solid, liquid and gas are all called matter. Height, width and depth are all called space. There is nothing pagan about seeing the heart of God in creation through the Trinity. They remove the trinity and replace it with nothing. And miss all of the scriptures that reveal such amazing truths in scripture that draws us closer to our God.

To Christ our Lord be all glory and honor unto ages of ages. Amen

The Jews/Hebrews/Israelites Are Not A Race part two: Books On The Black/African Jews

In part two of our series we now turn to a early 20th century book that chronicles the color, religious behavior and quotes of the Jews themselves. Accompanied by other historic citations of early historians.
Below is an excerpt of the book. In them you will see conversions, proselytizing, defining factors of a Jew being circumcision, and even accounts of Jews themselves who were not certain of the "purity" of their genealogy. All of these facts chronicle the reality that the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites were never a race.

"The Jews: a study of race and environment" by Fishberg, Maurice, 1872-1934:

"Legation at Addis-Ababa, has made a study of the different races of Abyssinia, and says that the Falashas have all the physical characters of the indigenous population to such a degree that they may be mistaken for them. The latest description of these Jews is from the pen
of H. Nahoum, another representative of the Alliance Israelite. He believes that they were CONVERTED to Mosaism by a group of Judaizers who came from Egypt
around the second or third century B.C., probably during the epoch of Ptolemy Euergetes, and gives good reason.'"

"for this opinion. In former times their number was quite large, but since the wars between the Christians and
Mussulmans of the sixteenth century the severe persecutions, as well as forced conversions, have reduced their
number, and at present there are from seven to eight thousand of them."

This next piece in the book is about converts and marriage in Judaism. The word used in the old and new testament for convert is "PROSELYTE". Intermarriage is another reality that history plainly reveals about the acts of the jews throughout various places.

"PROSELYTISM AND INTERMARRIAGE."

"[Judaism]was religious, not racial," says Joseph Jacobs. Modern archaeological research has, however, shown that ethnic
conditions were not as simple as Jacobs would lead us to believe. It appears that the diversity of physical type of
mankind in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, etc., was at least as great as that seen to-day in Europe. And
judging by the small extent of the region under consideration and the small number of inhabitants, racial mixtures
should leave a profound impression on the type of the Hebrews. One has only to recall that there were the tall, blonde and dolichocephalic Amorites, the negroid Cushites, the Hittites, who are held by some to have been a Mongoloid race, and an Armenoid race by others, but at all
events not of the type considered Semitic, etc. That intermarriages with all these should not have left any impression on the Jewish physical type can not even be imagined.

The greatest mixtures of which there are any historical records have taken place during the Greco-Roman period of the Jews, Notwithstanding the fact that Judaism is such an exclusive religion, and thought always to discourage proselytism, still during that period it made many converts. Everything points to an intense activity in spreading Judaism among the pagans. " Modern re-
searches have shown positively that Judaism has sent forth apostles," say E. G. Hirsch. That they have succeeded is shown by the fact that many important
personages were gained, as, for instance, the Royal family of Adiabene, a province on the banks of the Tigris, Another instance was Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla; he was a cousin of the Emperor Domitian, a member of the Senate and Consul, and his wife was also
a near relative of the Emperor. Another important proselyte was Fulvia, the wife of a highly respected senator. This last proselyte gave the Jews considerable
trouble ; the Senate promulgated a law that the Jews must leave Rome. During the last ten years which Feldman says that in the time of Ezra " Intermarriages between Jew and alien went on a scale sufficiently large to silence forever the
claim of racial puiily for the Jew ."

"Jnoish Eniychpadia, article " Proselytes," vol. x., p. 22a. » H. GraelE, HisUry efthejfuii, voL iL, pp. 136-137.

---preceded the destruction of the Judean State," says Graetz, "there were more proselytes than there had been at any other time. Philo relates from his own experience that in his native country many heathens, when they embraced Judaism, not only changed their faith but their lives, which were henceforth conspicuous by the practice of the virtues of moderation, gentleness, and humanity."

It appears that the Jews g'ained more women to their creed than men. Perhaps the fact that women had not to undergo circumcision made it easier for them to enter, while men might have been kept away for just this reason.

In Damascus the greater part of the women were converted to Judaism, and In Asia Minor there were also many female proselytes, according to Graetz. In Palestine, too, there must have been many proselytes, and they must have had an important social position, otherwise the Tannalm would have no reason to discuss their status and the conditions of their reception. One Judah ben Ezelciel, fearing lest his son might marry a woman who is not of pure seed of Abraham, kept on delaying his marriage long after he reached maturity. Upon this his friend Ulla pertinently remarked: "How do we know for certain that we ourselves are not descended from the heathens
who violated the maidens of Zion at the siege of Jerusalem?"'

There were two kinds of converts at that time, complete converts and "half converts," The latter class consisted of men and women of non- Jewish birth, who, forsaking their ancestral pagan and polytheistic religions, embraced monotheism and adopted the fundamental principles of Jewish morality, without, however, submitting to circumcision or observing other ceremonial laws. Their number was very large during the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Jerusalem. Complete converts were those who also submitted to circumcision. It appears that the Rabbis were not unanimous as to the standing of each of these classes of proselytes In the Jewish community. Some insisted that
the half converts are not to be considered Jews at all,

' H. Graew, History of the Jews, vol. ii., p. 215. '^ Ibid., p. SSI. ' Adicle
"Proselytes,"/"""^ Eiuyclap-edia, vc\. x., p. 211. db,1

PROSELYTISM AND INTERMARRIAGE.

while others were more lenient, and were ready to accord them full equality with the Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry. The "via media" was taken,* and they had to be regarded by the Jews as brothers, although later, during the third century when Christianity had grown, conditions changed, and half converts were again looked at with suspicion. Theodore Reinach, one of the best authorities on the history of the Jews, says about these conversions: "The fervour of proselytism was indeed one of the most distinctive traits of Judaism during the Greco-Roman epoch — a trait which it never possessed in the same degree either before or since." He enumerates various methods which were employed to increase the flock of Irsael. " The most brutal was that of forced conversion — that is to say, circumcision — such as had been imposed by John Hyrcanus on the idumeans and by Aristobulus upon a portion of the Uureans (Galileans), Next was the conversion of slaves owned by Jews as their individual property. But it was especially the moral propaganda, by word, example and book which was the most productive of success throughout the whole extent of the Diaspora."

Reinach points out that Judaism possessed prudence and tact in dealing with the proselytes. It did not exact
the complete adoption of the Law immediately. The neophyte was simply a "friend" to the Jewish customs and observed only some of the laws. His sons frequented the synagogues and deserted the temples, and contributed their oboli to the treasury of Jerusalem. At last the
proselyte took the decisive step : he received the rite of circumcision and the bath of purity. In the third generation, according to Deuteronomy, xxii. 8, there
existed no distinction between Jew by race and Jew by adoption,^ unless the latter belonged to the accursed races. ^
" It cannot be doubted that Judaism in this way made numerous converts during two or three centuries. . . .

' E. G. Hirsch, Ibid., p. aaa.

* According lo the Talmud proselytes held an inferior position in the Jewish community {Kiddiishin, 4, l). They were, however, admitted to intermarriage with all social grades below the highest^i'.^., the priests. Most Hebrews were not better situated Uf. Sanhedrin, 4. z).

^ These accursed races were the Canaanites — i.e., Semites, who could
not a}ier the Jewish physical type, according to Jacobs.

PROSELYTISM AND INTERMARRIAGE.

indisputable fact that proselytes were found in the Tibers in every country of the diaspora. The pagan authors, struck by this phenomenon, carefully distinguish the Jews by race from Jews by adoption.

[So we can see here that other nations were the first to attempt to classify the Jews by race and adoption. Not the jews themselves]

In Antloch a large portion of the Greek population was Judaized in the time of Josephus ; and although they turned Christians in the days of Chrysostom, they had not forgotten the way to the synagogues. The same holds
true of certain districts of Spain. In Damascus ' almost all the women ' observed the Jewish usages. Paul met
with proselytes in Antioch of Pisidia, in Thyatira, in Thessalonica, and in Athens. In Rome, where the Jewish propaganda had taken the first step at the time
of the embassy of Numenius {139 b.c), its efforts and success are indicated by Horace, Persius, and Juvenal." "The enormous growth of the Jewish nation in Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene," says M. Reinach, "cannot be accounted for without supposing an abundant infusion of Gentile blood. Proselytism swayed alike the upper and the lower classes of society. The great number of Jews
passing through the state of slavery must, of course, have catechized their comrades rather than their masters." It
is true that the State, and later the Jews themselves, discouraged proselytism, and under Domitian, Nerva, and
others, placed heavy penalties for converting Gentiles to Judaism. It is also true that the evangelical preachers
met with ready ears among the half proselytes, and that it was among them that Christianity made its first and its
most numerous conquests.^ But to say that this removed all the foreign blood from Judaism, and left the flock of
Israel in its original purity, is absurd.

With the spread of Christianity in Europe the Church did its best to discourage intermarriage between Jews and
Christians. That it was not always successful is attested by the fact that it was often necessary to repeat the edicts
at various Church Councils. Andree enumerates the following edicts of the Church directed against intermarriages — The first prohibition was enacted by the
Eastern Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 388.

In the West the third Concilium Aurelianese issued the
following prohibition: — "Christianis guoque omnibus inter- dicitnus ne judaorum. conjtigiis misceantur : quod si fecerint,

' For further iiiformalion on this subject see Th. Reinach, article,
"Judfei," in DidUnnaire des Antiquitis ; also, article, "Diaspora,"
liwish Encyclopedia, vol. iv. pp. 569-571 ; E. Renan, I.e Juddisme lamme
race et cemme rclipon ; Paris, 1 883.

" R. Andree, Ziir Va/iskunde der /uden, p. 48 ; Leipzig, l88i.

usque ad sequeitralionem, quisquis tile est, contmunione pellatur." At the Council of Toledo, held in 589, the clergy was admonished " ul Judmis non liceat Christianas habere uxores." The Council of Rome, held in 743, ordained "ji quis Christiaiius filiarn suant JudcEO in
conjugio copulare prasumserit — anathema sit."

Many other prohibitions of this sort were issued both by the Church and State in various parts of Europe. In Hungary, for instance, according to Garetz, the jews
lived in friendly relations with their German brethren. Mixed marriages between Jews and Christians also
occurred frequently, as the Church had not yet established itself in the country. King Ladislaus prohibited such marriages in 1092. But that his prohibition did not
bring the desired result is seen from the fact that the Archbishop Robert von Gran complained in 1229 to the Pope that many Jews in Hungary are married to Christian women, and that the latter are often converted to Judaism ; that Christian parents are selling theirchildren to Jews, and some, out of greed for money, permit themselves to be
circumcised, and that within a few years many thousands of Christians were lost to the Church.

Another focus of intermarriage of immense significance in relation to the ethnic type of the Jews was in Southern
Europe, especially in Spain, Portugal, and Gaul. In Gaul, during the sixth century, Graetz says that the jews lived on the best of terms with the people of the country, and intermarriages occurred between Jews and Christians, and in Spain " intermarriages between Jews and Christians occurred quite as frequently as in Gaul." King Reccared in 589 was the first to prohibit these marriages, and to
order that children born to such mixed couples should be forcibly baptized.' That slaves were converted to Judaism
is shown by the same edict which ordained that slaves initiated into Judaism, and especially circumcised, should be forfeited to the State. That the desired effect was not achieved in this case as well as in others is shown by the

fact that mixed marriages continued to take place. Thus, in the thirteenth century, according to Graetz, " among the Jews In Southern Spain the lukewarmness towards the law went so far that not a few contracted marriages with Christian and Mohammedan women,"' and it is
also stated that Rabbi Moses of Coucy, a kind of Jewish revivalist, in the thirteenth century "succeeded in influencing those who had contracted mixed marriages
with Christian and Mohammedan women to divorce, themselves from their strange wives."- It seems that plixed marriages kept on occurrinjj, because, in King

llfonso's code, we meet again au interdiction of such , as well as against conversions of Christians to Judaism.

A large proportion of the blondes encountered among the Jews of to-day may have been acquired into the fold of
Judaism in the following manner, which is but one of many instances which can be quoted from the history of the
Jews: "The Jews of Germany are to be regarded as colonies of the Prankish Jews," says Graetz, "and such "l them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the ' H, Gmeti, IW., p. 527. ' I61J,, p. 546.

“One occasionally meets with a Jew whose skin is very dark, the hair black and woolly, the head long with a prominent occiput. The face is prognathous, the two jaws are projecting in the form of a muzzle. The lips are large, thick, and upturned, and the nose flat, broad, and the wings upturned so that the nostrils can be seen in profile. This negroid type can be singled out in any large assembly of Jews. They are often mistaken for mulattoes, and the author knows of one who had considerable difficulty to get along in one of the southern states of America. As with all the other types of Jews, some Biblical scholars are inclined to attribute the origin of the negroid Jews to intermarriage with the Cushites of Biblical times. It is indeed remarkable that this type is met with among Jews who have not come in contact with negroes for centuries, as for instance the Jews of Eastern Europe.”

The following chapter is most eye opening.

CHAPTER XXII.
Assimilation versus Zionism ....

Tendencies among the modem Jews — George Btandes' view on his relation to Judaism— Causes oF the revival of the
Jewish Nationalists' movement — The Zionist's programme—Zionism and assimilation — The Zionist's
assumption of a distinct Jewish nationality — Attempts lo avert disintegration of Judaism — Are the Jews a nation?— The Jews were a nation before Iheir emancipation in Europe — Judaism and the laws of Christian
states kept them apart from their neighbours— Assimilation of the Western Jews— Causes of denationaliialion
of modern Jews — Religion and nationality — Language and nationality — There is no national Jewish vernacular
— Adoption of culture ond civiliiaiion of the countries in which they live — The failure of the Nationalists in their efforts to revive the Jewish national spirit — What is Jewish art? — Is there a Jewish literature ?— Absence of a specific Jewish spirit in painting, sculpture, music,
and architecture— 'There is no Jewish follc-lore, folk- tales, folk -medicine, etc. — 'Professor Lazarus on Jewish nationalism — Why Palestine is
inadequate to shelter all the Jews— Christendom would not cherish developing Palestine industrially and commercially — Repatriation offers no solution of the Jewish problem —
Zionism has not attracted the cultured Jews— Objections to an autonomous territory — The two tendencies among
the modem Jews.

CHAPTER XXHI.
Recapitulation and Conclusions

Religious pride of the jews— The Semite and the Aryan— Influence of the environment on racial characters — The difference between the social and the anthropological type of the Jew — Anthropologically the Jews are not a race — There IS no Jewish type;

And there you have it. According to the author Maurice fishburg the Jews are not a race. I hope this blog piece has been insightful to you the reader. We will continue our next blog piece on another book that Black Hebrew Israelites also love to use. I encourage you if you have not to read part 1 of this series here.

Full book here
https://archive.org/details/jewsastudyracea00fishgoog/page/n28

The Jews/Hebrews/Israelites Are Not A Race part one: Race and The Chosen

It is often thought and taught by the world and many liberal Jews that the jewish people are a race. Many of the major problems of this ideology are as follows:

1. We are Gods chosen people which means we have first rank rights for rule and grace above all others in both this life and the next.

2. The knowledge of who one is by bloodline/DNA/seed lineage/race is just as important as the gospel itself. And in some cases is part of The Gospel.

3. The concern for suffering and injustice in the world is first and foremost goes toward our own people. And in some cases the only people that matter.

4. The bible is not only known as The Word of God, but it was written by hebrews, for hebrews, and to Hebrews. 

If you do not believe that this kind of thinking has honestly saturated the minds of people, from the sincere to the scarred, then look no further than the Christian Identity, black Hebrew Israelite, and Aryan movements.

First let us look to what conservative Jews have to say about the idea of "Race" and simply compare it to the positions of the movements above. 

The following is from jewfaq.org

Jews are clearly not a race

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).
This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, you will see many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has convertedto Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.

- http://www.jewfaq.org/m/judaism.htm. - http://www.jewfaq.org/m/whoisjew.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is from haaretz.com

A race, whatever that notion really means, is certainly not something that can be joined. The Jewish people can be joined. We might have plenty of arguments among us as to what constitutes a valid conversion, but conversion is certainly possible. Ever since Abraham and Sarah’s legendary outreach program in which the residents of Charan were convinced to journey with them to Israel, almost every generation of the Jewish people has welcomed non-Jews into its midst. In fact, given any contemporary Jew, it is statistically inconceivable that there shouldn’t be a single convert anyway up their family tree. Admittedly, members of the tribe of Levi claim an unbroken patrilineal chain all the way back to Abraham; but there are bound to be converts on some of the maternal branches of their family tree. There is no such thing as a racially pure Jew. We are not a race.

The Oxford political philosopher, David Miller, has a fantastic study of Nationality, simply entitled “On Nationality.” He defines a nation in terms of five characteristics; none of these characteristics alone define a nation, but they are certainly jointly sufficient.

- https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/jewish/jews-are-not-a-race-but-a-nation-1.5178342.                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

So already you can see that the idea of The Jews being a race must have been pushed as a very modern thought. And not an ancient unanimous one. So let us now turn to the idea of being "Chosen". What did the Jews down through history actually think or believe about it? 

The following comes from bc.edu

From the article 

SOME ARE CHOSEN, ALL ARE LOVED     Rabbi Gilbert S. Rosenthal                      Executive Director, National Council of Synagogues

V.  MEDIEVAL PERMUTATIONS

The traumatic challenge of loss of land, Temple and political independence coupled with the defection of not one but two daughter religions, Christianity and Islam, compounded Israel's need to find a raison d'etre. Christianity preached a theology of displacement and supersession of the mother faith. Islam, no less zealously, accused Jews of having falsified Scripture and rejecting the last and greatest of the Prophets, Muhammad. Both faiths denigrated Jews and Judaism, often stooping to vile epithets and periodically expressing their contempt in violent assaults and expulsions.

Interestingly, not all the medieval sages and philosophers met this dual challenge in the same way. Saadia Gaon, for example, did not stress the notion of chosenness in his works. Indeed, he warned Israel not to be arrogant for all nations are God's and election does not imply exclusion of others.³⁶ Likewise, Maimonides barely mentioned the concept in his Guide of the Perplexed.³⁷Yehudah Halevi, however, approached the issue from a racial perspective. For example, he insisted that "only an Israelite by birth is eligible to become a prophet" and he stressed that in his view, gentiles are of inferior stock.³⁸Maimonides rejected this approach, arguing that prophecy can be found among gentiles: "But we believe in a prophet because of what he says, not because of his descent..." He spurned the "biological" approach to Jewishness as is evident from his famous letter to Ovadiah the proselyte:

I received your inquiry asking whether you, as a convert to Judaism, are entitled to say in your daily prayers, "Our God and God of our Fathers." I say to you: Indeed, you may say all of these blessings without changing the wording. You are just like any native-born Jew in this regard .... for Abraham is your spiritual father, and our inheritance is yours as well, since there is no racial distinction in our faith.³⁹

Medieval philosophers split ranks over the issue of the racial factor in election: Several followed Halevi; Albo took the Maimonidean approach and just as Maimonides had refrained from listing chosenness as one of the thirteen "ikkarim" or principles of faith, so did Albo delete the idea from his category of basic principles.⁴⁰

The school of Kabbalah reinterpreted chosenness in a bold and remarkable fashion. The well-known aphorism of the Zohar, "The Holy One, blessed be He, the Torah and Israel are one" articulates the view that knesset Yisrael (the ecclesia of Israel) unites in mystical union with God via the medium of Torah. Since Israel is the people of Torah, it may cleave to God as no other people. Indeed, it brings "fulfillness" to God. There is cosmic importance to keeping the mitzvot: "If you observe My commandments it is as if, so to speak, you made Me." Conversely, if Israel separates from God, blessings are withheld and God removes His indwelling presence from their midst. When Israel went into exile, God's presence accompanied them. In fact, a part of God Himself went into exile. Using erotically mythic terms, the Zohar identifies God's shekhinah of indwelling presence with knesset Yisrael and the sefirah tiferet and suggests that God cohabits with Israel when they are virtuous while their sinful behavior ruptures that mystical sexual union.⁴¹

Lurianic Kabbalah cast Israel in a newer role, viewing the entire people of Israel as a messianic entity charged with the mission of releasing the sparks of divinity encasing the world via the process of tikkun, mending or repairing society. The Hasidic school incorporated this and other motifs and in the HaBaD version of Rabbi Shneor Zalman of Liady, founder of the Lubavitch dynasty, "the nations of the world emanate from the unclean kelipot (shells) which contain no good whatsoever, while Israel possesses a 'Godly soul' rather than an 'animal soul' as is found among the gentiles."⁴²

 

VI.  MODERN REINTERPRETATIONS

With the modern era, the advancement of science, new philosophical schools, and the Enlightenment, the notion of the Chosen People -- along with other basic tenets such as Divine revelation of Scripture and a supernatural Deity -- were subjected to searing criticism. Chosenness seemed to be outdated and embarrassing. Worse, it cast other nations in an invidious light. After all, if one people is chosen doesn't that imply all others are rejected?

The "enlightened" thinkers among European Jews sough to blunt the argument while preserving a remnant of the notion. Moses Mendelssohn, for example, substituted the idea of mission exhorting that Judaism is the "religion of religions" and it must be propagated and taught by Jews to all humans. Geiger followed suit and propounded the notion that Jews have a peculiar "genius" for religion and religious life and it is incumbent upon us to spread the word of God. Even the neo-Orthodox leader, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, propagated the ideal of a Jewish mission. The Reform movement picked up the theme, developing its mission to the gentiles motif but never actually excising the prayer or the idea of chosenness. Instead, it viewed chosenness as God's mandate to Israel to spread His sacred teachings, of monotheism and morality.⁴³ These reinterpretations of the ancient doctrine found deep resonance in the writings of Kaufmann Kohler, Herman Cohen and Leo Baeck. Thus Baeck reflected:

Every people can be chosen for a history, for a share in the history of humanity. Each is a question which God has asked, and each people must answer. But more history has been assigned to this people then to any other people ... The word of the One God penetrated this people from its beginnings.⁴⁴

Martin Buber viewed the idea of election teleologically, effectively espousing the mission of Israel:

What then is this spirit of Israel of which you are speaking? It is the spirit of fulfillment. Fulfillment of what? Fulfillment of the simple truth that man has been created for a purpose... Our purpose is the upbuilding of peace ... And that is its spirit, the spirit of Israel ... the people of Israel was charged to lead the way to righteousness and justice.⁴⁵

Abraham Joshua Heschel regarded chosenness as a "spiritual act," for Israel is a "spiritual order" and "in order to be a people we have to be more than a people. Israel was made to be a 'holy people.'" Heschel insisted

We have not chosen God; He has chosen us. There is no concept of a chosen God but there is the idea of a chosen people. The idea of a chosen people does not suggest the preference for a people based upon a discrimination among a number of peoples. We do not say that we are superior people. The "chosen people" means a people approached and chosen by God. The significance of this term is genuine in relation to God rather than in relation to other peoples. It signifies not a quality inherent in the people but a relationship between the people and God.⁴⁶

Alone among Jewish theologians and philosophers stood Mordecai M. Kaplan in his assault on chosenness and excision of references in the liturgy to the chosen people. He believed the doctrine to be racially tinged and dangerous as a breeder of contempt for others. "The idea of race or national superiority exercises divisive influences generating suspicion and hatred," he wrote already in 1934. Later on, he added that "we cannot assume that Israel must at all times possess that spirit to a higher degree than other people." In his personal diary, he reflected more vitriolicly: "Thank God I had had the courage to go through with the excision of such a cancerous growth from the Jewish consciousness ..." And in a remarkable outburst in class, witnessed by this writer, he heatedly called the doctrine "racism and Nazism" -- much to the outrage of the students. Kaplan carried his theory into practice as he expunged references to the chosen people from his Reconstructionist prayerbook. Thus, he reformulated the blessing upon receiving an honor to the Torah to read:

Blessed are You O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brought us close to His service and gave us His Torah....⁴⁷

Curiously, many among the new generation of Reconstructionists are urging the restoration of the classic doctrine.⁴⁸

More recent attempts at redefining the idea of election fall into the category of "Covenant Theology." Thus, Professor Eugene Borowitz muses:

I believe we must supplement human choosing with God's own action if we are to explain to ourselves our fundamental commitment to the continuity of the people of Israel. Yet I believe the traditional view that God "chose us from all peoples and gave us the Torah" clashes too much with our sense of history and reality for us to reaffirm it ... Covenant theology expresses my belief in an enhanced reciprocity between God and people.⁴⁹

^{https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/rosenthal.htm}

Footnotes: 

36. Saadia Gaon, Emunot Ve-Deot II, ll, III, 7 and VII, 3 ed. Rosenblatt (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1948), pp. 126, 158, 267ff.

37. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed 2:25 & 2:39.

38. Yehudah Halevi, The Kuzari (ed. Zifroni) I, 102-111 & 115, pp. 56-64. Barukh Frydman-Kohl and Lippman Bodoff, op.cit. in n.4, debate whether Halevi was or was not a racist in this matter.

39. Maimonides, Responsa II, 293.

40. Albo, Ikkarim III, 37, pp. 336-351; Maimonides, Introduction to Chapter X of Sanhedrin (ed. Rabinowitz), pp. 147 ff.

41. Zohar III, 17a & b, 73a, 93b; , 159b-160a; llI, 74a-75a & 114a-115b; Isaiah Tishby, Mishnat Ha-Zohar (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1959), I, 231-265; Gershom Scholem, On The Kabbalah on Its Symbolism (N.Y.: Schocken, 1965), pp. 105ff.; idem., Origins of the Kabbalah(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987), p 167-169; Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1988), pp. 158-194.

42. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (N.Y.:Schocken, 1971), pp. 46ff. Tanya, Likkutay Amarim I, 5-11 and especially 6a.

43. Mendelssohn's position is summarized in Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1973), pp. 537-547 and passim. For S.R. Hirsch's stance, see hisHoreb (London: Soncino, 1962), pp. 609f. and The Nineteen Letters on Judaism (New York: Hermon, 1960), pp. 80-81. Geiger's approach is analyzed by Max Wiener in his Abraham Geiger and Liberal Judaism (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1962), pp. 262-264 and passim.

44. Leo Baeck, This People Israel (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1965), p. 402.

45. Martin Buber, Israel and the World (New York: Schocken, 1948), pp. 185-187.

46. Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1956), pp. 423-426.

47. Mordecai M. Kaplan, The Future of the American Jew (New York: MacMillan, 1948), pp. 211 ff.; The Greater Judaism in the Making (New York: The Reconstructionist Press, 1957) pp. 33-40 & 292 ff.; Questions Jews Ask (New York: The Reconstructionist Press, 1956), pp. 204-211. See, too, his Journal entry of April 29, 1941, published by Jack Wertheimer in Conservative Judaism Vol. XLV, No. 4, Summer 1993, pp. 31f. After much debate, the new Reconstructionist prayer book retains the basic position on chosen people but offers several options of traditional texts below the line.

48. On the chosen people concept in the various modern movements in Judaism see my Contemporary Judaism: Patterns of Survival, (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1986), pp. 67 ff., 129 ff., 192 f.; 242-245 and 364 ff.

49. Eugene Borowitz, Renewing the Covenant(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), pp. 144-146, 195-220 and especially 211 ff. David Hartman and Irving Greenberg are also exponents of "Covenant Theology." See Hartman's A Living Covenant (New York: Free Press, 1985), passim. Orthodoxy seems committed to the chosen people idea and while Conservative Judaism accepts it, it has reinterpreted it and stressed the teleological aspect of the notion. See Emet Ve-Emunah, Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism(2nd edition, New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1990), pp. 33 f.

This concludes the first blog piece on these topics. From the jews down through history we can see a very different stream of thought and where the later thought of being "Chosen" was a late comer and violently opposed by the Jews. Perhaps it was out of desperation from constantly being exiled from countries that the idea became something the later Jews began to fasten themselves to. As far as race goes, the Jews have always considered themselves a nation as the bible states, but not a race.

Does The Word Christian Actually Mean a stupid person?

Many of you have perhaps heard a claim that the word "Christian" means a stupid, unintelligent, idiotic, moronic person. From there they barrage you with definitions from heritage dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. as proof. Now others may not be fooled by this because Christianity has its base languages in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, coptic and [classical]latin. Not English, French or Vulgar Latin. So how did this rumor spread about is no more than a few decades ago. So does the word christian truly mean a stupid person? lets find out

CRETIN
cre·tin  (krētn) Share:  n.
Often Offensive
1. A person with cretinism.
2. A person considered to be foolish or unintelligent.
[French crétin, from Franco-Provençal, person with cretinism (formerly common in Alpine valleys because of insufficient iodine in the local diet), from Vulgar Latin *christiānus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrīstiānus, Christian; see CHRISTIAN.]
cretin·oid′ (-oid′) adj.
cretin·ous (-əs) adj.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2019 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 

cretin (n.)
1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, "a dwarfed and deformed idiot" of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones. The word is of uncertain origin. By many it has been identified with Vulgar Latin *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow." Related: Cretinism (1796).
- https://www.etymonline.com/word/cretin

Christian - classical Latin definition

Christĭānus , a, um, adj. Christus,

I.Christian: “fides,” Cod. Just. 16, 8, 18: “lex,”ib. 16, 8, 13: “religio,” ib. 9, 40, 16.—Hence, subst., a Christian, Tac. A. 15, 44; Suet. Ner. 16; Plin. Ep. 10, 97; very frequent in the Church fathers.—Absol., a Christian clergyman, Cod. Th. 5, 5, 2; 12, 1, 50.—Sup.: “Christianissimus,” the most Christian, Hier. Ep. 57, 12: “princeps,” Ambros. Ep. 1, 1.— Adv.: Christĭānē , in a Christian manner or spirit: “regere,” Aug. Ep. 89.

A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

That was the classical standard latin definition for "Christian". Which pre-dates the later Vulgar latin. Notice no mention of idiocy or lack of intelligence was referenced.
So what exactly is vulgar latin?

Vulgar Latin
Vulgar Latin or Sermo Vulgaris ("common speech"), also Colloquial Latin,[1] or Common Romance (particularly in the late stage), was a range of non-standard sociolects of Latin spoken in the Mediterranean region during and after the classical period of the Roman Empire. It is distinct from Classical Latin, the standard and literary version of the language. Compared to Classical Latin, written documentation of Vulgar Latin appears less standardized. Works written in Latin during classical times and the earlier Middle Ages used prescribed Classical Latin rather than Vulgar Latin, with very few exceptions (most notably sections of Gaius Petronius' Satyricon), thus Vulgar Latin had no official orthography of its own... If a date is wanted "we could say Latin 'died' in the first part of the eighth century",[6] and after a long period 650–800 A.D. of rapidly accelerating changes... Even after the end of Classical Latin, people had no other names for the languages they spoke than Latin... for 200–300 years. Modern people call these languages proto-Romance. The Romance languages, such as Catalan, French, Italian, Occitan, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish all evolved from Vulgar Latin and not from Classical Latin.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin
- Posner, Rebecca (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 98
- Herman, József (2000). Vulgar Latin. Translated by Wright, Roger p.115, 119

So The classical latin carries the true latin term for "Christian" and not the vulgar latin. Since this is evident, it then means that the classical latin, and koine Greek languages are entirely divorced from the word "Cretin", and even more from its semi relational vulgar latin word "Christian". This include their meanings.

Why "Cretin" means "Unintelligent"? 
The medical condition known as “cretinism” is caused by a severe deficiency of thyroid hormones   (a condition known as “hypothyroidism”). In infants, this condition results in greatly stunted growth, physical deformities and cognitive impairment that ranges from slight to severe. The primary cause of cretinism is lack of iodine in the diet, a deficiency that can also cause “goiter,” a grossly enlarged thyroid gland visible as a large swelling in the neck. Hypothyroidism today is usually successfully treated with iodine supplements.

In other words, a hormonal issues within human beings due to lack of salt that caused abnormalities in the body.

continued-
-Lack of iodine[SALT] in the diet (due mostly to poor soil conditions) was, at one time, common in southern Europe, especially in the rural villages of the valleys at the foot of the Alps. The word “cretin” itself is derived from the Swiss French Alpine dialect word “crestin,” from the Latin word “Christianum,” which means “Christian.”

Just why the word “Christian” was applied to such sufferers is a matter of dispute among etymologists, but the most likely explanation is that “Christian” was used in the sense of “human creature, worthy of respect” in order to make clear that those afflicted with “cretinism,” while they might look and act a bit odd, were simply people like the rest of us. “Christian” was also used in English in this non-religious sense from the 16th through the 19th century, essentially as a synonym of “fellow” or “regular guy.”
- http://www.word-detective.com/2008/12/cretin/

Another insight is that Etymology.com stated that "The word is of uncertain origin. By many it has been identified with Vulgar Latin *christianus"

Notice that its said "VULGAR LATIN"... Meaning that there was a term for "Christian" that came from a different latin. If there is more than one kind of latin, then that means that the latin word for "Christian" must have an earlier meaning. A meaning unrelated to "idiot" or "Unintelligent person".

So what does the word Christian actually mean? More to come in another blogpost.

What Does A Jew Get In Christ That A Gentile Does Not? PART TWO

I am often told that there are gifts and privileges that comes with being an Israelite that does not come with being in Christ. However, the scriptures tell a different story. When you are in Christ, whether jew or gentile, you are given the fulfilled and fullness of the new covenant. And the new covenant fulfills the old. It truly is based on “Better promises” as Hebrews 8:6. 

SEE PART ONE HERE 

Old Covenant Israel	New Covenant Church
His Chosen/Elect (Deut 7:6-8; 6:10; 4:37; 14:2 Ex 33:1)	His Chosen/Elect (Matt 24:31 Mark 13:27 Rom 11:5-7 Eph 1:4; John 17:6 2Ti 2:10 Tit 1:1Col 3:12 1Pe 1:2 2Pe 1:10 Rev 17:14)
Saints (Numbers 16:3, Deut 33:3)	Saints (Rom 1:7 1Co 1:2 2Co 1:1 Eph 1:1, 15 2Th 1:10 Act 9:13 Heb 6:10, Rev 5:8)
Inheritance (Deut 4:1, 20, 37; Acts 13:19, Numbers 16:3, Deut 33:3)	Inheritance (Act 20:32, Gal 3:18, Col 3:24, Eph 1:14, 185:5, Heb 9:15, 1Pe 1:4)
Priests/Priesthood (Exodus 19:5-6)	Priests/Priesthood      (Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10; Rev 20:6 ,1Pe 2:5, 1Pe 2:9)
A Holy Nation (Ex. 19:5; Lev 20:22-26; Deut 26:19; 14:21; Gen 17:7-14)	A Holy Nation, especially inwardly (Hos 1:9-11 cf Rom 9:24-26 & Heb 8:6-13; 1 Pet 2:10)
Seed of Abraham (Deut 4:1, 20, 37; Acts 13:19)	Seed of Abraham (Gal_3: 7, 28-29; Joh_8:39; Rom_4:11-16, Rom_4:24, Rom_9:7-8)
Beloved (Deut 7:6-7, 4:37)	Beloved (Rom_1:7; Eph_2:4-5; Tit_3:4-6; 1Jn_4:19 col 3:12; 1 thess 1:4)
Holy (Deut 7:6)	Holy (1 Peter 1:15-16, Mat_5:48; Luk_1:74-75; 2Co_7:1; Php_2:15-16; 1Th_4:3-7; Tit_2:11-14; Heb_12:14;)
Called (Isaiah 41:9, 43:1)	Called (Rom 1:6,7; 8:30; 1 Cor 1:2; 1Th_4:7; 2Ti_1:9; 1Pe_1:15-16)
Flock (Ezek. 34:17-20; Ps 77:20 cf Ps 78:52-53, 56-59; Ps 95:10-11; Ex 20:38; Heb 8:9)	Flock (luke 12:32, 1 Peter 5:2, John 10:1-18; 21:15-17; Acts 20:28; Matt 25:32-34)
Peculiar(or PURCHASED) Treasure (Ex 19:5,6; Deut 7:6; 28)	Peculiar(or PURCHASED) Treasure (1 Pet 2:9; Titus 2:14, Act_20:28; Eph_1:14;))
God’s Tabernacle (Lev 26:11)	God’s Tabernacle (John 1:14; 1 Cor 6:16-20)
God walks among Them (Lev 26:12)	God walks among Them (2 Cor 6:16-18)
Married to Israel, later divorced her Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 3:14, 6;2, 31:32, Hosea 2:19, Ex 24;  who divorced them for unfaithfulness (Heb 8:7,9,13; Hos 1:9)	Christ married to The Church, NEVER divorced her  (Eph 5:22; 2 Cor 11:2; Heb 8:9-10), who is their faithful one (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:8-9)
set apart by circumcision & ceremonies (Ex. 19:5; Lev 20:22-26; Deut 26:19; 14:21; Gen 17:7-14)	Set Apart by Spiritual Rebirth (John 1:12-13; 3:3; 18:36; Luke 17:21; Col 1:13; Rev 1:5)
The Type (Gen 17:7-14 Rom 9:5; Gal 4:21-31)	The Anti-Type (Gal 6:16; Rom 2:29; 9:6, 22-26, 11:26; Gal 3:16, 29; 4:21-31)
Consecrated by the blood                         of calves and goats                  (Heb 9:12 WOW; Lev 11:44-45)	Consecrated by Christ’s blood                        (Heb 9:12 WOW; Titus 2:14)

Email me to join The Father’s Well Newsletter!

matthewsalih@gmail.com