Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IamJoseph · 07-21-2009, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Joshua maybe sounded too Jewish to them? They wanted to have a Greek version that made a new start. .

:constern01:

It is inappropriate for a scripture to use made up names: it borders on a falsehood, and a scripture cannot contain this. At the very least, a scripture should also identify it is using another new name, and postscript the original name. There was no Greek or Christian Jesus in reality - so why promote it?

We know this from the mode of the Hebrew bible, which uses real, authentic, contemporary and original historical names - for Hebrew and the non-Hebrew subjects.

show_no_mercy · 07-21-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Joshua maybe sounded too Jewish to them? They wanted to have a Greek version that made a new start.

I'm not sure you can pronounce "Yehoshua" or "Yeshua" in Greek, or render it perfectly with Greek letters.

spamandham · 07-21-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

There was no Greek or Christian Jesus in reality - so why promote it?

It'd be nice if you had consistent standards Joe. For your preferred book, you claim that the mere mention of a name, such as Adam or the name of a mountain, proves everything. But for other books, the mentioning of names proves nothing.

Do you at least recognize this inconsistent approach?

bacht · 07-21-2009, 07:24 AM

The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach goes back to late 3rd C bce (?) I don't know what the Greek looks like, I can only read the English

Amaleq13 · 07-21-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Muhammad Ali most likely had another name first.

Yes, Cassius Clay.

Toto · 07-21-2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I'm not entirely sure about the anagram in the OP. If I understand Greek correctly, there are three grammatical variations of "Jesus" in Greek: Ιησου (Jesu), Ιησους (Jesus), and Ιησουν (Jesun). "Jesus" is only used when Jesus is doing something (like "Jesus is preaching the good news"), and "Jesu" is the neutral Greek transliteration of "Joshua" (Mark 1:1 - the beginning of the good news of Jesu Christ). "Jesun" is used when something is being done to Jesus (they crucified Jesun!).

Maybe someone more fluent in Greek can correct me.

These are all grammatical forms of "Jesus." All would be used in referring to Joshua in the Septuagint, where "Jesus" was used to translate "Joshua", well before the first gospel was written.

IamJoseph · 07-22-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

For your preferred book, you claim that the mere mention of a name, such as Adam or the name of a mountain, proves everything.

You left something vital out. This referred not to a name but that Adam is the 'oldest' name on record, and Mount Arafat is 'first' recorded in Genesis. This does make a difference, whatever be those names.

Quote:

But for other books, the mentioning of names proves nothing.

Do you at least recognize this inconsistent approach?

The two issues are not related. The Gospels would have been more authentic if original names were used, or explained in some manner. Of note this is the mode seen in the Hebrew bible. A scripture cannot be seen to countenance anything which is not true - else it looks more like politics and diplomacy.

bacht · 07-22-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The two issues are not related. The Gospels would have been more authentic if original names were used, or explained in some manner. Of note this is the mode seen in the Hebrew bible. A scripture cannot be seen to countenance anything which is not true - else it looks more like politics and diplomacy.

You don't want to go there Joseph, the OT writers practiced pseudepigraphy centuries before the Christians.

God Fearing Atheist · 07-22-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

...and "Jesu" is the neutral Greek transliteration of "Joshua" (Mark 1:1 - the beginning of the good news of Jesu Christ).

IHSOU is the genitive. The form is used in Mark 1.1 because its the good news of Jesus Christ.

IamJoseph · 07-22-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The two issues are not related. The Gospels would have been more authentic if original names were used, or explained in some manner. Of note this is the mode seen in the Hebrew bible. A scripture cannot be seen to countenance anything which is not true - else it looks more like politics and diplomacy.

You don't want to go there Joseph, the OT writers practiced pseudepigraphy centuries before the Christians.

There is no scripture on this planet more honest than the Hebrew. Contrastingly, totally nothing can be proven of the Gospels. Have you checked the veracity of the NT?

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

07-21-2009, 07:24 AM	#14
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach goes back to late 3rd C bce (?) I don't know what the Greek looks like, I can only read the English

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.