mountainman

But are they?

The following from a post by the author of
Fabulating Jesus:
Why Gnostic "Codes" Do Not Name the Historical Jesus

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

mountainman

Sorry my Greek is only good at discos.

Whether there are any instance in which
χρηστός is ever abbreviated with χς, in
the standard fashion that Χριστός gets
abbreviated to this χς nomina sacra?

Thanks, and best wishes


Pete Brown

Amaleq13

I suspect it is a myth that "most people" think this way. Nobody even vaguely familiar with more than one language would and it is difficult to imagine that anyone could be so ignorant of other languages. That really doesn't leave very many people left to hold such an incredibly naive view of translation.

You appear to me to be arguing against a very small minority of idiots and that is only if we assume such individuals actually exist.

Jeffrey Gibson

There you go again, Pete -- quoting another author who, like your authority on Apollodorus, is a certified crank. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lamb_Lash

And why shouldn't they do this if what they are doing is providing a translation of Greek or Coptic into English since there is no such English word as Christos?

And this is wrong why? Please tell us, Pete.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

So you admit that no one should take your claims about "non disco" Greek (i.e. ancient Greek texts) as having any merit?

Why would the adjective χρηστός, ή, όν, be mistaken for a noun?

Jeffrey

Toto

I an sorry, but Lash fails utterly to meet the standards of Certified Crankdom™. He is a neo-gnostic and a "spiritual seeker," but has not invented a perpetual motion machine, or tried to expose the vast conspiracy behind modern maufactured foods or the floridation of water.

But I did wonder why Coptic usage would even be relevant to this discussion.

From rereading the link, it appears that he is the source of Pete's theory that the desert anchorites were closet pagans, actually preserving a previous belief system. This is possible, and can't be disproven, and I doubt that they were the first or last closet non-believers hiding out in allegedly Christian institutions.

But this does not prove, or even support, the thesis that Constantine invented Christianity from whole cloth in the fourth century.

patcleaver

Only 9% of people in the US are bilingual and that includes immigrants and their children.

Only 17% of people in the US said that they speak a second language and that includes immigrants and their children.

I usually do not respond to baseless arguments. Please check out the facts before you respond to me or I will just ignore you.

Amaleq13

Neither of these statistics is at all relevant to my post nor does either offer any support for your claim. I referred to even people only "vaguely familiar with more than one language" as being unlikely to hold the view you oppose.

What "facts"? You certainly presented none to support your contention that "This is exactly what most people think translation is...".

I find that claim to be preposterous and in serious need of support. Got any "facts" to back it up or does that advice only apply to those who question your assertions?

The only reason you have to ignore me is an inability to support your claim.

patcleaver

Toto and Ben should have know better.

Jesus is not the same name as Joshua

Joshua in English equals
Iosue in Latin equals
Iesous in Greek equals
Yehoshua in Hebrew equals
Yeshua in Aramaic, which was the language of 1st century Judea.

In the Greek NT Joshua of Nazareth was called Iesous, which was the common Greek translation of Yehoshua from Hebrew in the first century. However, the Septuagint sometimes uses an older/abbreviated form of Iesu/Iesus for Joshua.

Jerome translated the NT and OT into Latin in the late 4th century. In the OT, he translated Iesu/Iesus/Iesous from the Septuagint into Latin as Iosue. But in the New Testament, He rendered Iesous consistently as Iesu/Iesus, even when the NT referred to Joshua of the OT in two places.

The King James Version translated Iosue in Jerome's OT into Joshua; and translated Iesu/Iesus from Jerome's NT into Jesus instead of Joshua even when the NT is referring to the Joshua of the OT. Nobody knows why the translators of King James did it. Later English Bibles changed the references to Joshua of the OT from Jesus to Joshua, but just perpetuated the error of referring to Joshua of Nazareth as Jesus. Possibly, they did not want congregations to know how confusing the NT really is.

The above information is mostly from footnote 6 in http://www.hadavar.net/nameofjesus.html, which is Christian apologist site and therefore may not be trustworthy.

patcleaver

Amaleq13 claims that most people understand the process of language translation, then he should be able to back that up with facts, otherwise, I will just assume that he is wrong.

Amaleq13 is just being arguementetive - I will be ignoring him.