Duvduv

Well, it looks like this is yet another thread that has bern diverted off of its subject into an interpersonal chat session. Anyone care to get it back on track?

Sheshbazzar

Its 3:30 AM here, not keeping anyone from posting whatever else they may wish on topic.
Want it back on track? Continue your arguments with spin or Toto if you like.

Lugubert

What's in a name?

(It had to be said...)

I'm not overly surprised that there are different ways of rendering a person's name when exported to another language. The discussions on what the Pope's name should be in assorted languages is interesting.

I'm more intrigued by what seems to have happened to another guy. Jesaja (Swedish; Isaiah to you) is ישׁעיהו in his book 1:1. BUT the book is named ישׁעיה - without the waw! That's BHS' Jesaia.

A 1740 Latin-Hebrew bilingual has the same Hebrew for chapter and text, but names the book Jesaias for short in Latin (full name Liber Jesaiae), and has in the text the uninflected (I think) Jeschajah in 2:1. (1:1 genitive like the full book name: Jeschajæ).

Derailing even more, an ancient Hebrew grammar (in Swedish) "explains" the pronunciation of ע as (translated) "cannot be pronounced by us"...

Duvduv

Let's boil it down this way:

a) The Greek scriptures chose to use the name IESOUS to represent both Joshua and Jeshua despite the fact that with other names the Greek is closer to the Hebrew that Iesous is to these names. The Greek does not differentiate between the persons Joshua and the name of the Christ. They are all IESOUS.
Why did the Greek not go with IEOSOUA and/or IESOUA?

b) The Latin chose to differentiate between the name of the Christ - IESUS - and the name used for Joshua and Jeshua - IEOSUE which sounds closer to the Hebrew than Iesous in Greek. But why did the Latin name of the Christ remain IESUS from the Greek instead of calling him IEOSUE?

c) Why did the English translators choose to go with JOSHUA and JESHUA while retaining the name JESUS for the Christ alone? Was the English following the Latin in this respect to possibly suggest that the name JESUS was not actually the same as the more Jewish name Joshua/Jeshua as presumed by the Greek translation which gave the Christ the same name as persons named Joshua/Jeshua?

Chili

Duvduv, only a rose is rose, and only that which is called rose is the rose we need to see. After that you can call him anything, but do not confuse the Christ with Jesus, who was not the Christ and in the Gosples needed to be crucified before we could see that difference made known.

That is the whole point and maybe is the reason behind the different names like Jesus and Joshua here, or maybe Chrestos and Christos elsewhere, of which now one of them is the anti-christ that Paul was talking about in the other gospel that was preached.

Add to this that the anti-christ is much more vocal and voiciferous even like a hawker in the marketplace, than it is easy to see why the real name is distinct but not glamerous in its superiority to so define the narrow gate . . . as if they are the scraps discarded from the rich man's table.

Then also consider why the [brother of] Jesus in Matthew and Mark does not go onward to Jerusalem, but back to Galilee he goes to set these two as opposites exposed to make known the difference between tragedy and comedy that still is a hard sell around here today.

To note here then is that not resurrection is the secret here, but destiny confirmed is what the gospels are all about, to be either hell or heaven now on earth. To be sure, if Gallilee is a 'back to' from where this Jesus came it is part of life on earth, it must follow that, then, that 'onward to' is also be part of this life, to make them opposite here now on earth.

Sheshbazzar

The answer to this is really quite simple, AND takes only one word; ROME. ROME ROME ROME.

Rome long ago imposed their corrupt form of name upon every one within her reach with the sword, terror, and massacre.
They murdered anyone that would even dare write the name as IEOSUE or in Hebrew, or in any form except that which they had decreed.

No daughter 'church' has ever stood up to her 'Mother' in this matter, and thrown off the false name of her Mother's brass snake-on-a-stake Nehushtan idol.

The 'woman' is the great prostitute 'Whore' Church that sits upon seven hills. Most people have little difficulty in recognizing exactly what institution among humanity it is that these verses are describing.

Even that Church being so described recognizes herself, and admits herself to being that organization within her own literature.
She can't change her spots (tattoos) so she lives with them, and will continue glory in her authority and her power and her self-importance until the hour that she is at last removed.

Regarding that Whores 'names of blasphemy', anyone the least bit familiar with the Bible should be aware that the Holy One of the Hebrews, The Holy One of Israel has but One Name.(Exodus 3:15 & Zech 14:9) And his people Israel were forbidden to even so much as make mention of any names of other elohim, the names of the elohim of the nations around them. (Exodus 23:13)

The Whore riding the Imperial Roman scarlet beast government, has led all of the nations, every one of them, to retain, and to substitute the names of their respective ancestral deities and idols (elohim), into the place of that Holy, Set Apart Name which is written in the Scriptures, was engraved upon The Temple, and upon the Anointed Priests mitre.

The substitution of these 'blasphemous' old idols names was and is a practice that was instigated and is supported to this very day by Rome, and all of her whoring daughters the Protestant churches, that in this follow lockstep in their Mother Whores footsteps.

Did you know that the name of the Holy One of Israel is for example, according to millions of Catholics and Protestants 'PAN'? And these churches all pray to Pan? and celebrate their elaborate rituals and offer up invocations to PAN?
Who or what was 'PAN'?
No problem that to the Great Whore of Babylon and her whoring daughters. Just take the name of that ancient mythological half-goat half-man horned demon and substitute it under the guise of being a 'translation', and stick it into a billion Bibles and books and present it to the gulible as being a name for Israel's Elohim.
And who will be any smarter or able to resist her authority?
John of Revelations hated the Roman catholic form of Whore religion with a passion.

Duvduv

Chili, I don't see how what you have said relates to my questions.

Shesh,
I don't think "Rome" exclusively existed when the Greek texts came out. However,

I would definitely first appreciate examining all the specific points I raised about the use and changes of names.

Indeed, on the basis of what I was describing, was the official Church trying to indirectly suggest that in fact "IESUS" was not a Jewish name originating from Joshua/Jeshua at all? And if so, what did they think it meant?

Sheshbazzar

True, Rome didn't exist exclusively, and there were many Messianic (<sic> 'Christian') believers and sects that were independent of Rome -at that time-.

The earliest NT texts exclusively employed the nomina sacra ΙΣ for the Hebrew name יהושע 'Joshua' (<sic> 'Jesus') with each group free to provide the pronunciation they endorsed.
When the Roman faction of the Church gained sufficient power she displaced the nomina sacra with the spelled out forms 'IESOU' or 'IESOUS' and then demanded under extreme penalty absolute conformity by the entire 'christian church' world to her corrupt spellings, and to the pronunciation of it that she endorsed.
Every knee was now going to bend to the name of her idol.

Anyone who used any variant spelling or pronunciation was thereafter hunted down and executed as being a Judaizer or a 'heretic'.
Everyone hereafter was going to bow down to that queered name that ROME named or else.

The Roman Church murdered the peaceful saints ('khsedim' -'holy ones') of the earth by the thousands to establish her bogus invented name and her authority over men. That name is the name of her idol. You may see it hanging wherever she spreads.

We've all been had. Some may claim they are atheists, but if they accept the lying name that she has named, they are still in bed with her.
Time to get out of her bed, out of her -or her daughters houses, and get way clear of her brass idol and its name. -Rev. 18:4

Duvduv

Shesh, how does this explain the uniform use of Iesous instead of Iesoua and Ieosua and the use of Iesue in the Latin, with Iesus retained for the Christ alone? English also retained it though supposedly it merely meant Jeshua and Joshua??

Sheshbazzar

Why not just get yourself down to the nearest Catholic Church?
It is after all their name that you want to know all about. They will be more than happy to tell you what to say, how to say it, when to say it, and how to write it.
Problem all settled and solved. Its worked for billions.