Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JEST2ASK · 10-25-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Who traditionally selected the name of the children
in your usual out-of-the-way Galilaean 1st century
village? Were there conventions? Were there
exceptions? Who would have given this common name
to the god of the observable universe within the
Hubble-Limit, at the time, if we assume he actually
"incarnated" as the texts would will us to believe?
The parents, the man, the woman, the priests,
who? Was it Mary or Joseph or neither? Do we know?

:wave:

In Luke there is quite a big deal made about the Angel Gabriel naming John (The Baptist) and Jesus.

However I also seem to recall that his name was supposed to be Emmanuel, per the O.T. prophecy.

Malachi151 · 10-25-2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There have been a number of people who try to claim that because "Jesus" was a common name it wouldn't have been chosen for the name of a savior. This is an interestingly untestable hypothesis. A non-existent savior needs to have a special name!

I have pointed out that the name "Jesus" is laden with significance. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua, the person after Moses who led his people to the promised land, and "Jesus" is the name of the high priest responsible for the reconstruction of the temple, god's house, after the exile.

However, I'd like to put forward perhaps a new reason why "Jesus".

John the Baptist is considered in Mark to be Elijah, the messenger sent before the coming of the day of the Lord. Mk 1:6 describes John the Baptist as Elijah (see 2 Kgs 1:8). And one can best understand Mk 9:11f as referring to JtB as Elijah. Just as Elijah came before Elisha in Kings, so did JtB come before Jesus in the gospels. What is interesting about this is the name Elisha, a contracted form of Elishua, "my god saves', "my god" of course being Yahweh, hence it is an equivalent of Yeshua, Jesus.

Whether Jesus existed or not cannot be asserted by his having a common name. There are numerous associations with the name.

spin

Good points, and agreed, however, even if there was no good reason it really wouldn't matter anyway. Why Zeus, why Apollo, why Dionysus, why Ra, why Abraham, why Moses, etc., etc.

There are literally around 50,000 different named gods and mythical figured from across the traditions of the world, how did all of their names come to be? The fact is, this stuff just happens within cultures and we don't have any kind of precise explanation for it.

Indeed we have a much more precise explanation for the potential rise of a mythical Jesus than we do for just about any other mythical figure, in large part due to the amount of preserved material of course.

Malachi151 · 10-25-2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Who traditionally selected the name of the children
in your usual out-of-the-way Galilaean 1st century
village? Were there conventions? Were there
exceptions? Who would have given this common name
to the god of the observable universe within the
Hubble-Limit, at the time, if we assume he actually
"incarnated" as the texts would will us to believe?
The parents, the man, the woman, the priests,
who? Was it Mary or Joseph or neither? Do we know?

:wave:

In Luke there is quite a big deal made about the Angel Gabriel naming John (The Baptist) and Jesus.

However I also seem to recall that his name was supposed to be Emmanuel, per the O.T. prophecy.

These are all much later trappings, which really have nothing to do with the origin of the cult, the figure, or the name.

Clouseau · 10-25-2007, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Who traditionally selected the name of the children
in your usual out-of-the-way Galilaean 1st century
village? Were there conventions? Were there
exceptions? Who would have given this common name
to the god of the observable universe within the
Hubble-Limit, at the time, if we assume he actually
"incarnated" as the texts would will us to believe?
The parents, the man, the woman, the priests,
who? Was it Mary or Joseph or neither? Do we know?

:wave:

In Luke there is quite a big deal made about the Angel Gabriel naming John (The Baptist) and Jesus.

However I also seem to recall that his name was supposed to be Emmanuel, per the O.T. prophecy.

His name, i.e. description, was and is immanuel, to some. It means 'God with us'.

Ray Moscow · 10-25-2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

There might be multiple reasons why "Jesus" is such a good name for the main character of the Christian stories -- besides the possibility of an HJ who actually had that name -- but I like the idea that the gospels are largely a retelling of the Exodus story and therefore cast "Jesus" as the new Moses.

And who followed Moses in the Hebrew Bible? "Joshua/Jesus", the new Moses.

Joshua wasn't the new Moses. So if Jesus was the new Moses, why wouldn't his name be "Moses"?

I don't know why "Jesus" wasn't called "Moses", but the extra meanings carried by the name "Jesus" probably makes it a better choice.

Regarding "Joshua" as the new "Moses": besides being his successor, Joshua also paralleled some of Moses deeds, such as crossing the Jordan in parallel to Moses crossing the Red Sea.

Anyway, to me the concept makes sense.

Ray

xaxxat · 10-25-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

:wave:

In Luke there is quite a big deal made about the Angel Gabriel naming John (The Baptist) and Jesus.

However I also seem to recall that his name was supposed to be Emmanuel, per the O.T. prophecy.

His name, i.e. description, was and is immanuel, to some. It means 'God with us'.

But why was he called Jesus instead of Emmanuel if the prophecy said he would be called Emmanuel?

spin's explanation makes more sense.

JEST2ASK · 10-25-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

These are all much later trappings, which really have nothing to do with the origin of the cult, the figure, or the name.

You are likely going to confuse me with the answer but anyway ...

It seems (to me ) like there was a (cult / community) generalized belief regarding a Messiah which preceded (gave rise to ) the "Jesus / Chritainity, movement, is there some (notes for Dummies) overview that you could suggest that touches on those developments.

Note I am very agnostic regarding what lies as the foundation of Christainit. I think there is likely some historical core events & figure(s) but do not accept the more IMO supernatural claims.

Clouseau · 10-25-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

His name, i.e. description, was and is immanuel, to some. It means 'God with us'.

Quote:

But why was he called Jesus instead of Emmanuel if the prophecy said he would be called Emmanuel?

Have you read the thread?

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-25-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

But why was he called Jesus instead of Emmanuel if the prophecy said he would be called Emmanuel?

The Emmanuel passage in Isaiah was not a Messianic prophecy and was never perceived as such until Matthew took it out of context for his own Gospel. The name would not have been chosen for a hypothetical mythical Messiah because nobody before Matthew thought it had anything to do with the Messiah (because it doesn't).

JoeWallack · 10-25-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, I'd like to put forward perhaps a new reason why "Jesus".

John the Baptist is considered in Mark to be Elijah, the messenger sent before the coming of the day of the Lord. Mk 1:6 describes John the Baptist as Elijah (see 2 Kgs 1:8). And one can best understand Mk 9:11f as referring to JtB as Elijah. Just as Elijah came before Elisha in Kings, so did JtB come before Jesus in the gospels. What is interesting about this is the name Elisha, a contracted form of Elishua, "my god saves', "my god" of course being Yahweh, hence it is an equivalent of Yeshua, Jesus.

Whether Jesus existed or not cannot be asserted by his having a common name. There are numerous associations with the name.

spin

JW:
Supporting your speculation is that "Mark's" primary character from the Jewish Bible is Elijah. "Matthew's" Reaction to this was to change the primary character to Moses. However, Paul was clearly before "Mark" and lacks the Elijah of "Mark". The question regarding Paul is does he ever explain the meaning of Jesus' Aramaic name to his Greek speaking audience?

Joseph

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.