Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 10-30-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

There was (and is) no name more significant to an Israelite. The name means 'God is salvation', and the Jews were those looking forward to the coming of God's salvation through the Messiah. There were many individuals given the name, and this fact in itself was a constant reminder of the Messiah, as had been promised by the prophet Jeremiah:

'"The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety."' Jer 23:5 NIV

Many Jews had a different take on what doing 'what is just and right in the land' meant than the meaning taken by Jesus, but, as a whole, they certainly took the prophecy seriously.

So when along came a man doing good deeds, performing miracles, saying remarkable things that had not been said before- fulfilling prophecy, some said- and they asked his name, they were given a clue. It looked like an ordinary name, one they had perhaps got a little inured to. He looked like an ordinary man- no crown, no royal entourage, no army, no shining angels. But maybe this really was, at last, the promised Messiah, the king who was to come to them, 'righteous, and having salvation' (Zec 9:9).

Quote:

Good stuff there Clouseau. OTOH, the points you are making apply equally well to the MJ case.

There is no OTOH, because the subject of the post is not HJ.

gurugeorge · 10-30-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

the points you are making apply equally well to the MJ case. If the new "wrinkle" on the Messiah idea that Cephas and a few other perfervid scripture-botherers and mystics came up with in Jerusalem was that of a Messiah who wasn't to come, but one who had already been, and in obscurity, and had already done his job, "Jesus" would be the ideal name for him too.

Not just the MJ case, but also the FJ (ok, we've just made him up, whaddawe call him?) and the TJ cases (what does the tradition indicate his name is?).

spin

Well, every alternative Jesus-theory ought to have its own explanation for why "Jesus", but the reasons for why "Jesus" in one theory might easily overlap with the reasons for why "Jesus" in another. I don't see any reason why every Jesus-theory should have its own unique answer to "why 'Jesus'?".

gurugeorge · 10-30-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

There is no OTOH, because the subject of the post is not HJ.

Just sticking my oar in

spin · 10-30-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Well, every alternative Jesus-theory ought to have its own explanation for why "Jesus", but the reasons for why "Jesus" in one theory might easily overlap with the reasons for why "Jesus" in another. I don't see any reason why every Jesus-theory should have its own unique answer to "why 'Jesus'?".

My interest is to keep people honest and see that there are more than two nags in the race. Almost every punter seems to talk only about HJ and MJ, which could hide the reality. I don't like FJ, but people have tried it. I have put forward a TJ because I can see that it has happened, not because I believe it was the case, but because it is possible and has explanatory force.

spin

gurugeorge · 10-30-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

My interest is to keep people honest and see that there are more than two nags in the race.

Yep I agree with this, definitely, that's why I posted ages ago about "Jesus spectrums", and IIRC Malachi151 at that time picked up the ball and put up a survey post up about it. It's a really important point.

The thing is, there still hasn't been a really lucid analysis of the possibilities that gives a compelling intellectual categorisation. You really ought to do it, you know

Anyway, I'm wandering off topic as usual ... :blush:

the_cave · 10-31-2007, 03:13 PM

spin, that's a very interesting OP--I've been playing around with names myself, but that's not one I've thought of.

mountainman · 11-02-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

My interest is to keep people honest and see that there are more than two nags in the race.

Yep I agree with this, definitely, that's why I posted ages ago about "Jesus spectrums", and IIRC Malachi151 at that time picked up the ball and put up a survey post up about it. It's a really important point.

The thing is, there still hasn't been a really lucid analysis of the possibilities that gives a compelling intellectual categorisation. You really ought to do it, you know

FWIW, I'll second that. For a start I have not found the time
to gather up all the scattered references here and there to
this Ebion as an exemplar for the Traditional Jesus option.

But I think this is important. Scholarship needs to be exploratory
and tolerant of inter-disciplinary approaches that are tempered
with the special requirements of ancient historical research.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Loomis · 11-02-2007, 10:32 PM

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

This is a really, really, fascinating subject. I think you are on to something.

It looks to me like the authors of the New Testament were completely unaware of the presence of the name Yahweh in the Old Testament. It looks to me like they were reading from a Greek translation (LXX) that read “the Lord” where Yahweh’s name once was.

Check out the blunder in Romans 10:9-13 where Paul uses Joel 2:32 as a proof text. Paul’s use of Lord (kurios) only makes sense if it meant ‘lord’ and nothing more. It looks to me like Paul thought that ‘the lord’ and ‘God’ were two different characters in the OT!

(Maybe he was subconsciously preserving the El / Baal paradigm.)

It looks to me like a crucial element in the “story of Jesus” is how he fulfilled some kind of prophecy by bringing meaning to all of the instances of the phrase “the Lord” in the LXX.

Loomis · 11-02-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

The shit about every knee shall bow comes from Isaiah 45:23.

Here it is again in Romans 14:8~9/ 11:

Quote:

If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. -- For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.”

Christ died and returned to life so that he might become “the Lord” in Isaiah 45:23.

It's the same motif from Philippians 2: Christ became the lord.

Note that Paul’s use of ‘lord’ only makes sense if he thought Isaiah meant “lord” and nothing more.

Loomis · 11-02-2007, 11:06 PM

Maybe Yahweh’s name was so sacred that they stopped using it and eventually forgot what it was. (It's not in the LXX)

Maybe a part of the excitement surrounding the story of Jesus was the rediscovery of the name Yahweh.

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

10-31-2007, 03:13 PM	#56
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	spin, that's a very interesting OP--I've been playing around with names myself, but that's not one I've thought of.

11-02-2007, 11:06 PM	#60
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Maybe Yahweh’s name was so sacred that they stopped using it and eventually forgot what it was. (It's not in the LXX) Maybe a part of the excitement surrounding the story of Jesus was the rediscovery of the name Yahweh.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.