aa5874

What EVIDENCE! You have NO evidence. You are using the very same dazzling forgery as Evidence that Josephus knew the God/man who was RAISED from the dead.

If the EVIDENCE was already known then ALL the SCHOLARS would have written books with the ALREADY KNOWN EVIDENCE for JESUS.

Scholars can't find the EVIDENCE for JESUS.

And, if you linger on the theory that Josephus knew Jesus of Nazareth then you may NEVER realize Jesus was non-historical.

Littlejohn

The church fathers, now even known as 'forgers fathers', they did believe that Iesus (Latin) was the transliteration of Hebrew YEHOSHUAH. What did you expect to find written in the Gospels and in Josephus' works, 'raped' by Christian scribes, who 'Iesous' (hence the Latin Iesus) actually meant 'healer ', as was well known by the first fathers of the church? ... This does not make sense, since the same forgers fathers tried 'desperately' to remove from the word 'Ιησους' its really meaning: that is HEALER! ...

In Palestine this concept was expressed by the term 'Essene': word of Greek origin, almost certainly derived by the attribute'Iasoun/Iesoun', ie 'healer', as also stated by Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem. That the meaning of the word 'Essene' was 'healer', it makes us clearly understand Philo, who associated the figure of palestinians Essenes to that of the 'therapeutes': another greek word meaning doctor, healer, etc..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

show_no_mercy

Still avoiding the question I see.

I've asked you to provide your own translation of the Aramaic ישע into Koine Greek. Not into Latin (as Jerome did), not into English (e.g. YESHUAH).

FYI from a source older than the "church fathers":

Also, you might want to explain this:

Littlejohn

"...That was a pretty pathetic attempt to dodge the question at hand.."

'Pathetic attempt'?... No, it was just an attempt to induce you to use the rational sense ... but I see that I 'missed the target!

".. I've asked you to provide your own translation of the Aramaic ישע into Koine Greek..."

At the time!... Said You 'translation'?... Well, let's see below:

if by YEHOSHUA/YE'SHUA one means 'God saves' or 'savior God', then the greek translation should be 'THEOS O SOTER' (or simply 'THEOS SOTER');

if we mean simply 'savior', then the translation in greek is SOTER (and NOT Iasous/Iesous!).

Instead taking into consideration only the phonetic transliteration from the sound of the Hebrew pronunciation of the word Yehoshua (Yeosua), then not even a child with handycap would state that IESOUS is the correct greek phonetic pronunciation!.. This is 'THE TRUTH' and that's why Jerome used for Yehoshua the word IOSUE, phonetically very similar to 'Yeosua' and does not used the word Iesus !!..

If Jerome had been convinced that the correct transliteration of Yehoshua was Iesus, would never used the word Joshua'!!.... But Jerome knew, as also know it other church fathers, including himself Eusebius of Caesarea, that Iasous/Iesous had nothing to do with the Hebrew Yehoshua, as it was an ancient greek word meaning HEALER!. ..

If you continue 'to climb on mirrors', go ahead, but will be dificult that I will follow you in this path ... To respond to the posts of this forum takes me a long time and frankly I do not have much available, especially now that I must 'tighten' to arrive at the conclusion of my work ...

And you still believe in such idiot things? ... Jesus actually went to Egypt, but by adult and not like a child, as claimed by the gospels! (See Celsus and the Talmud)

Greetings

Littlejhon

.

show_no_mercy

Just as I thought, you don't know what you're talking about. Yehoshua does not mean "god saves". It means YHWH saves. YHWH is never written in Greek, but substituted with the word "lord". "theos soter" is not a transliteration of ישע. But this is completely besides the point.

The Greek Ισαιας does not mean "YHWH saves"
The Greek Ελιας does not mean "My god is YHWH"
The Greek Ιωαννης does not mean "YHWH is gracious"
The Greek Ιουδας does not mean "praise"
The Greek Ιωσηπος does not mean "May YHWH add"
The Greek Ναθανιηλ does not mean "gift of god"
The Greek Ιακωβος does not mean "leg puller"
The Greek Σαρα does not mean "princess"
The Greek Ναουμ does not mean "YHWH consoles"
The Greek Δανεηλ does not mean "my judge is god"
...and on and on for every proper name in the Hebrew bible translated into Greek.

Yet, you're singling out one name in the Hebrew bible that wasn't literally translated to mean "YHWH saves" in Greek? Why aren't you complaining that Isaiah (ישעיהו - y'shuay'hu : YHWH saves) also wasn't literally translated into Greek?

Stop flipping between Latin and Greek. Jerome did not translate Y'shu into Greek. He translated it into Latin. You really need to stop relying on Jerome when Jerome did not translate ישע into Greek.

Again, here is how the word would generally be transliterated into Koine Greek:

י = Ι
ש = Σ
ע = ΟΥ

So ישע letter for letter turns into ΙΣΟΥ (Ισου / Isou - which actually sounds close to how "Jesus" is written in Arabic). Adding a vowel inbetween the iota and the sigma and turning that into nominative form would be something like Ιασους, Ιεσους, Ιησους, Ιοσους, or Ιωσους.

Hebrew doesn't have as strict a vowels system like Greek so the vowels are usually provided by the reader.

Because as we all know, Jerome was a foremost expert on Hebrew and knew more Hebrew than the Jewish translators of the Pentateuch who translated that Hebrew name into Greek (not Latin) about 500 years before Jerome was born.

Littlejohn

Are you sure that I do not have evidences about the fact that Josephus knew Jesus of Nazareth, also? ...

First time Josephus met Jesus was in Rome, then meet him again in Palestine, on the occasion that I have quoted several times.

"...knew the God/man who was RAISED from the dead..."

I already told you that the 'Testimonium Flavianum' is a resounding FALSE: ergo, Josephus never said that Jesus was a God or rose again from the dead!.... Not only that, but he also stated that don't believe Jesus was the 'Messiah', as Origen has hand down us with his writings. Since un the current versions of the works of Josephus, there is no trace of that statement, so it is a sign even more evident that Origen was referring to the original copies, that had been not yet manipulated, of the work of Josephus!

Another striking evidence about the many deletions made by forger christians scribes against the works of Josephus, it come us from the church's historic Orosius, the 'factotum' of Augustine.

Into his history, Orosius mentions the event about the expulsion of Jews from Rome, saying that this event occurred in the 9th year of Claudius. He also added, in order to give greater authority to his writings, that even Josephus was in agreement about the date of expulsion, ie in the 9th year of Claudius. However, the scholars know that none of this is found in the works of Jewish historical Josephus of 20 centuries ago about! ..

It 's so obvious that we are witnessing yet another 'holy' deletion from the texts by Josephus! ... Now all that remains to do, it is to understand why the forgers of long time ago found it necessary to remove this passage from the writings of Josephus ... Yet in this case, it is not useful to 'linger' on thesis 'denying' about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth ...

I'm convinced too! ... But why this may to happen it is necessary that scholars abandon the old search path, traced to 'art' by the forgers of 19 centuries ago, in order to confuse anyone who had taken care to undertake serious research on the historical Jesus.
Thanks to ''explosion' of informatic technology, is now possible to find search paths far more profitable than that hitherto followed, in a more or less complies way, from various scholars of the world whole!

".. Scholars can't find the EVIDENCE for JESUS..."

This does not mean that they do not exist ....

If your goal, and of those who follow your own guidance, is to prove that God does not exist, then I think you're wrong 'aims'!... To affirm the historicity of Jesus (a thing which is entirely rational, given the objective evidence in various literatures, beginning with the Rabbi one!) does not mean 'sic et simpliciter' to affirm the sure existence of the transcendent, nor even to affirm the alleged 'divinity' of Jesus of Nazareth: a healer 'thaumaturgic' and a 'wizard' that had absolutely nothing different from the current 'magicians' and illusionists of success, if not the fact that the techniques used by Jesus were certainly not 'refined' as those of modern illusionist-magicians

Greetings


Littlejohn


PS: motives why I'm going to post are essentially two: the first is to provide to those who want to use it, useful research ideas, to take their own path of research, ever attempted by any scholar before now; the second reason lies in the hope of come-across with someone, in an adversarial approach, who contest my exegetical reconstruction on a rational basis and that, like me, also rejects the argument for a non-historical Jesus, that I (and not just me only!) consider completely anachronistic and dated ..

.

Littlejohn

«..Yehoshua does not mean "god saves". It means YHWH saves. YHWH is never written in Greek, but substituted with the word "lord"..»

Tell me the truth: you have the will for joking?...But I do not have as much desire to do it ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

show_no_mercy

I'm sorry but this sentence doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, the Hebrew phrase for "god saves" would be Elishua (אלישע). Yehoshua means YHWH saves.

Fail. Insert another coin to continue.

Littlejohn

"..and his man Clement of the Clementine Forgeries.."

What??.... Clement of Alexandria was not Clement Roman, ie the alleged author of the 'Clementine' literature!!....

"..do not make any reference whatsoever to the greek name of Jesus, namely Iesous (Iησοuς).."

This depends on your exegetical approach ... For me (and not just for me also!) the references there are, and yet well also!

"..contain only the corresponding nomina sacra codified Greek abbreviation of "ΙΣ"..

What does this mean ?..." ΙΣ 'stands for' Iesous', or it stands not? ..

"..but also into all the earliest papyri fragments?..

Here is precisely ... There are many papyri that the experts have dated much before the fourth century, who speak of Jesus of Nazareth and his family ... How can you argue that it was Constantine, who lived in the III-IV century, to invent everything with the help of Eusebius and others? ... Or is not true that Constantine lived in the fourth century, but in the second? ...

All this seems absurd to me ... It is one thing to say that the Jesus of history was completely different from the Jesus of 'faith' (as indeed it was!) and that he was not at all neither a god nor a 'son of God', and another thing to say instead that he was 'simply' an invention of an emperor of the fourth century and then' climb 'on the mirrors in a vain attempt to prove it! .. What is the meaning of everything? ... To who benefits? ... Certainly not to the historical truth!

Paradoxically, the theory of a 'fictional' Jesus, ie not historical, plays to vantage of the Catholic clergy, especially after the victory that the Vatican reported in the case brought by the late Luigi Cascioli, who argued, in fact, the no-historicity about Jesus of Nazareth!

It's all too clear that at the 'holy' forger clergy returns back more useful than in Internet and in the literary world you talking about a Jesus never existed (because the clergy is well aware that such an argument, however unhistorical, is rejected by the vast majority of the faithful) rather you does research about a historical Jesus, going to 'dig' dangerously in the yard of the Vatican! ..

I have done just that and that is why today more than ever I'm convinced that I understood almost everything you needs to understand about the origins of Christianity and the true historical profile of Jesus of Nazareth!


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

stephan huller

For what it's worth the Jewish preservation of Jesus's name is Yeshu (yod-shin-vav). The Marcionite is Isu (yod-samek-vav). Clement's interest in making Jesus reconcile with the Greek name Jason probably develops from Isu. Isu has been argued to be an attempt to render the Iesous in Syriac. It is also worth noting that in Book Two of Against Heresies Irenaeus SEEMS TO BE arguing AGAINST Iesous as the proper name of Jesus and FOR Yeshu:

Moreover, Jesus, which is a word belonging to the proper tongue of the Hebrews, contains, as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half, and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth; for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means "heaven," while again "earth" is expressed by the words sura usser.The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just Jesus. Their explanation, then, of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculation is also manifestly overthrown. For, in their own language, Soter is a Greek word of five letters; but, on the other hand, in the Hebrew tongue, Jesus contains only two letters and a half. The total which they reckon up, viz., eight hundred and eighty-eight, therefore falls to the ground. And throughout, the Hebrew letters do not correspond in number with the Greek, although these especially, as being the more ancient and unchanging, ought to uphold the reckoning connected with the names. For these ancient, original, and generally called sacred letters of the Hebrews are ten in number (but they are written by means of fifteen), the last letter being joined to the first. And thus they write some of these letters according to their natural sequence, just as we do, but others in a reverse direction, from the right hand towards the left, thus tracing the letters backwards. The name Christ, too, ought to be capable of being reckoned up in harmony with the Aeons of their Pleroma, inasmuch as, according to their statements, He was produced for the establishment and rectification of their Pleroma. The Father, too, in the same way, ought, both by means of letters and numerical value, to contain the number of those Aeons who were produced by Him; Bythus, in like manner, and not less Monogenes; but pre- eminently the name which is above all others, by which God is called, and which in the Hebrew tongue is expressed by Baruch, [a word] which also contains two and a half letters. From this fact, therefore, that the more important names, both in the Hebrew and Greek languages, do not conform to their system, either as respects the number of letters or the reckoning brought out of them, the forced character of their calculations respecting the rest becomes clearly manifest. [AH ii.24.2]

I have struggled over the corruption of the original Aramaic by an ignorant scribe (this is a passage that clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus THOUGHT in Aramaic - sura usser demonstrates that - I can venture an explanation of this term if anyone wants - as well as his consistent denigration of interpretations developed in Greek).

But it is worth noting that Irenaeus's argument proceeds in a manner we wouldn't expect ...