jgoodguy

I am sure objections fo Fred or Howard would surface. However to address 'Yahweh Saves'. It was a common name in the day. I think the complete meaning is 'Who Yahweh saves' with gives an entirely different context than just 'Yahweh Saves'. No more significant than Joshua today.

It be nice to find a parchment with some guy recording the minutes of a meeting and reading "ok ok now, the Pope's wife likes Joshua for the hero's name so we will use Joshua".

dog-on

If you could provide me with one piece of manuscript evidence that actually uses the name Yehoshua, when discussing Iesous. I would be very interested in seeing it.

aa5874

Christian writers and even the Church of Rome to this VERY day associated Jesus called Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 with Jesus Christ of the NT who was the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

Origen did use the DETAILS of Jesus called Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" for the same Jesus called Christ in the NT and Origen did claim Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin in the very book where he made reference to Jesus Christ in Antiquities of the Jews. See "Against Celsus"

No Church writer even acknowledge that Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the name Jesus is NOT even found in the writings of Tacitus.

There are NO details about HJ in either Antiquities of the Jews or Annals.

The DETAILS found of Jesus called Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" MATCH the description of Jesus Christ of the NT who was RAISED from the dead just as the DETAILS of Pilate MATCH the description of Pilate the Governor in the NT.

In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews" 18, Pilate was governor in the reign of Tiberius and, whether forgeries or NOT, Jesus was called Christ who was crucified and RAISED from the dead on the third day.

It is CLEAR anywhere the name Pilate is found in the writings of Josephus and the NT that he was Governor under Pilate and anywhere Jesus called Christ is found in Josephus and the NT that he was the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth that was RAISED from the dead.

The very same apply to King Herod, Philip Herod, Caiaphas, Tiberius, and John the Baptist. These characters are the very same in Josephus and the NT.

But, perhaps there is STILL some historical sources of antiquity WITH DETAILS of HJ that is known by some people here.

dog-on

No evidence from that period, that I know of, describes the HJ that is now the popular opinion.

jgoodguy

Are you you are asserting that the name 'Yehoshua' is not the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek Iesous?

It is possible that the JMers are correct that Iesous was the one and only reference to Yehoshua, prior to the 4th century but I'd like to see some manuscript evidence of that. Otherwise we are left with a fiction in Greek about a Hebrew guy named Iesous. As it happens, at least one Hebrew form of that name is Yehoshua.

Your assertion that Yehoshua, Iesous or Joshua means 'Yahweh Saves' seems to be erroneous.

radius

Cleary it is possible that some aspects of the character described in the gospels were based on one or more historical figures. Yes, there were preachers; and men called Jesus; and men who were crucified.

However, even were this possibility to be true, how meaningful is it then to say that there was a historical Jesus who significantly resembled the Jesus of the NT? What would a HJ look like? What are the minimum requirements for such a character? Once the supernatural, the improbable, and the inconsistent are stripped away, what is left? And why would one assume, given the dominantly mythical properties of this character's story (and given that the earliest stories were more rather than less mythical), that the character was based on a historical person?

jgoodguy

The most probable HJ gives nothing to Christianity other than a name. However it is important to folks looking for ultimate origins.

dog-on

I think you might have missed the point of my question.

aa5874

Again, this thread is NOT about arguing who is wrong or right about "Yehoshua" or "Iesous".

We have stories in the NT and they contain certain characters like Pilate the Governor of Judea, Tiberius the Emperor, Caiaphas the High Priest, John the Baptist, Philip Herod the Tetrarch, Herod the King, Gabriel the Angel and Jesus the CHILD of the Holy Ghost that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

IN THE NT, These characters are ALL FIXED, that is, their descriptions cannot be ALTERED by the READER. It is the AUTHORS that describe their Characters.

The reader of the NT cannot claim PILATE was a FISHERMAN or ANGEL because the author of gMark did not give a description of PILATE when there are DETAILS of Pilate in gMatthew and gLuke.

So, likewise the reader of gMark cannot ALTER the description of Jesus, Tiberius, Gabriel, John the Baptist, Caiaphas, Herod, and Philip Herod, since it is the AUTHORS that described their characters.

Which author of antiquity, which source of antiquity gave DETAILS of HJ?

That is the question.

mountainman

Conversely one's religious bias may preclude some from considering the possibility that there was never an historical figure. The OP is asking for historical sources for the HJ. This implies evidence that is admissable to the field of ancient history, and belief (either for or against) is not evidence.