Sheshbazzar

Perhaps they normally didn't, but peculiar circumstances could arise that would put them in the position of having to ponder their choices of the names of their children as in the case of Zechariah and Elisabeth when it came time to give name to their first-born son, (Luke 1:5-66)
Old Zechariah was given ample time to ponder exactly what name he would bestow upon his son, and what that name would signify,
And the name that Elisabeth spoke, IS the name that she spoke,
And the name that Zechariah wrote, IS the name that he wrote,
though many to this day, following the lying teachings of degenerate men, do willfully bear a false witness against the truth.
But this prophets name is of less import than the Name of Him whom he preceded, these things may be obscured by lies and deceptions of this age, working in the children of disobedience, Whom have not the love of the truth, but time WILL come, and the truth will be made fully known to all men, everywhere.

spin

How so??

You might choose to believe this folk etymology, but how do you know that it is valid linguistically?

This insertion of "him" certainly doesn't come from the text. What motivated this eisegesis?

Prediction? When do you suppose the text was written so that this would be a prediction? Before or after Ramses II built Raamses? Before or after the Philistines moved to Canaan?

So you believe you can look beyond the Greek name which first appears in a Greek text and know what came before? On what philological grounds??


spin

Sheshbazzar

So much that I could write, of scholarly accepted ancient history, and of the abundant archaeological evidence, and of many other matters of which you have no present inkling;
No, if you choose to profess an ignorance of these things, I will not contend with you. Sheshbazzar

spin

The other leg plays jingle bells.

As you are new here, you don't know what other people here already know, so either thrill me with something called evidence or return to your epistemological quagmire.

I get the idea that you've recently learnt these words, but the idea of archaeology is not quite relevant to your earlier statement, unless you can show some nexus.

Now don't be a pathetic mindreader. If you had something to say, you would have said it instead of this wordy subterfuge.


There was no profession of ignorance. There was an attempt to draw out of you something to show more than just hot air.

So, please go back and try again, or leave us with the knowledge that you don't know what you are talking about.


spin

Iasion

Greetings all,

There may also be a loose connection to a Greek mythic figure called Iasius (or Iasion or Jasion even.)

The name may be based on Iaso, or healer.

Some references may be found in my simple essay about Iasion here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...ty/iasion.html

Quentin

Chris Weimer

heh, someone's trying to challenge spin's knowledge.

anyway, yahweh is the combination of yah and evoh, or so I heard. The male dominant aspect of the name is yah, which is just the name of the god. I didn't get this from Dan Brown, by the way.

Also, there were many Jesus' in that time period, about 10 of them were contemporary of Christ (according to Josephus) that led revolts and fought the establishment etc...

Dean Anderson

Whilst we are on the subject of the significance/etymology of "Jesus", what about "Emmanuel"?

This name gets prophesized in Matthew 1:23, but never appears again in the New Testament.

Is it just a variation of "Jesus", or is it a different name?

Sheshbazzar

We call His Name "eem-nu-el" because that is what His Name is.
However, His given NAME was not, and never has been "Emmanuel",
Therefore we do not call HIM, "Emmanuel" but His NAME IS "eem-nu-el".
This is why... "there is NONE other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved". (Acts 4:12) No man will get it, unless he gets it, that is of the decree, "You shall surely put a difference between..." Lev 10:10 and Ezekiel 44:23,
Beware of what you swallow, for there IS a distinction.
Can you say "Shibboleth"? or will ignore all the warnings and pronounce "Sibboleth"?
What difference does it make? this day is set before you life and death, choose life;
For by your word shall you be justified, or by your word shall you be condemed,
Declare now, ONE Name, that you might be fully justifed from all things.
Sheshbazzar

Killer Mike

I tend to agree that Jesus did probably exist, even though the Gospels are largely myth. There were dozens of people claiming to be Messiahs at that time. It seems more likely that there was an historical Jesus that preached for a few years and had gained a following of believers and the religion evolved from there. The "Jesus Myth" hypothesis is largely disregarded among mainstream scholarship. You wont find it at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.. Even GA Wells who for over 25 years wrote books like "Did Jesus Exist?" has recently changed his tune and now argues there was an historical Jesus.

Writer@Large

If I might offer up anpther perspective, as a non-Biblical scholar but a student of folklore ...

The commonality of the name is a big point in its favor as the choice for a legendary hero. In legend and folklore, the main character is often given a common name so that the listener can more readily identify with them, rather than a unique name that would be strange or unfamiliar to the audience. It's hard for a modern reader, for example, to relate to a character with a name like Napoleon Dynamite (actually a character from a recent movie) than it is to relate to a John or a Jack (the name of the everyman hero on my new favorite show, LOST). In fact, John/Jack is a classic folklore name for a hero, at least in the western tradition--Jack and the Beanstalk (part of a long list of "Jack Tales"), the legend of Jack-o-lantern, Jack and Jill, Johnny Appleseed, Big John Henry, etc.

So if Jesus were the John/Jack of the time, it would be a big plus for its choice for a legendary hero.

--W@L