mike_decock

Jesus means "God's salvation", Peter means "Rock". Are there other main characters with meaningful names?

-Mike...

Layman

Most name were meaningful. Still are though people place less importance on such things.

I for example, am named "Christ-bearer"

Spooky huh?

Llyricist

Let's not forget that in Peter's case, his actual name was Simon, and was changed to the more meaningful name of Cephas/Peter.

Could the same have been true of Jesus if he DID exist?

Amaleq13

Only if the name was featured in a story where the character was depicted as literally carrying Christ or as one who shares the gospel of Christ. Then there would exist the distinct possibility that the character was fictional personification of the concept of one "bearing Christ".

Layman

No, in a culture were names meant things it would likely be a coincidence. Inventing inventions based on the meaning of names has little merit apart from other factors. Especially in this case because "Jesus" was one of the most common names around in first century Palestine.

There is no methodlogy here, only more JM wishful thinking.

rlogan

My understanding from tertullian is that someone would have been called jesus expressly for the quality the name implies. In fact, Tertullian argued exaclty that about jesus in defending why they cll him that instead of emmanuel.

Amaleq13

You're saying that, in a culture where names are considered meaningful, it is more likely a coincidence when we find a name that matches the role of the character? That doesn't make sense at all. It would seem the exact opposite would be the case. In a culture where names were not considered meaningful, we wouldn't expect the meaning of a name to be used to connect the character to his role in the story. If considering names meaningful wasn't common, why bother with an effort that wouldn't be appreciated? In that context, I would agree that the possibility of coincidence seems more likely.

When, OTOH, the name of a character and the role of that character match and the story originates within a culture that considered names meaningful, that clearly reduces the probability that it is only a coincidence.

Thanks for pointing out that, because the culture from which the story of Jesus was produced considered names meaningful, the match between the name and the role is not likely to merely be a coincidence.

Layman

You misunderstood my point. Most names are meaningful and pro-God. You would be hardpressed to find someone with a name that meant "Not annointed by God" or "Satan Rocks." Especially in Jesus' time and place.

For example. My parents named me Christopher because of their strong faith. Thus you need not assume it's a name I made up so I could argue apologetics on the internet. And if you did, you'd be wrong. Also, my wife and I named our first son with the meaning of the name in mind. And we made sure it had explicit Christian meaning to it. If you knew our circumstances, and knew the meaning the name had to us in those circumstances, it would seem like there was meaning to the name. And there was. But it was real meaning, not fake meaning.

The same was likely more true in Jesus' time. Which is perhaps the reason that a large percentage of the male population had the name Jesus then. If I remember correctly, it's a derivative of Joshua who was a savior of the Jewish people after Moses.

A coincidence usually means nothing unless the odds are very high against its occuring in the normal course of events. That Jesus was named Jesus is something very likely to happen in the normal course of events. If his real name had been "Immanuel" you might get more play with this, but it wasn't.

spin

Then there's the good old morning star, called by the ancients "light bearer", ie Lucifer (or in Greek Eosforos).


spin

Amaleq13

Agreed but my point remains that from all the possible God-related options and in the context of a story where the character is depicted as providing salvation from God's coming Judgment, the name of the character literally means "God's Salvation". As you point out at the end of your post, they could have chosen "God With Us" as his name. That would have both literally fulfilled the prophecy mentioned and been consistent with the eventual belief of Jesus = God. Contrary to your suggestion, however, that does not appear to be a belief held by Paul so there would be less reason to suspect it as a deliberate creation. Instead, Paul considers Jesus as representing "God's Salvation" in the role of "Messiah". All of that is expressed in the title/name "Jesus Christ" and it is this connection between the role and the name that is consistent with the name as an intentional choice of the storyteller.

BTW, why the heck didn't Mary and Joseph name the kid "Immanuel" given the angels' declaration?

I wouldn't "need" to assume this but it would clearly be a reasonable possibility even if it was ultimately wrong. When I say something is a "reasonable possibility" it is clearly implied that I do not consider it an "undeniable fact". I understand what you are trying to say with your examples but neither is actually comparable to the portrayal of Jesus in a specific, theological role. Neither you nor your son are being depicted as playing a specific role in a story intended to convey specific theological beliefs.

We aren't dealing with references to some guy named "Jesus" in Paul's letters. We are dealing with a name of a character that directly connects to the role of the character. We are dealing with a story Paul is telling where the main character, whose sacrificed life is supposed to provide salvation from God, is named "God's Salvation". I cannot agree with you that this could "only" be a coincidence but, in all honesty, you must admit that, if the story is fabricated, a better name could not have been chosen.

I cannot deny that, given the apparently common nature of the name (and the apparent deficit of names available to 1st century Jews) it could simply be a coincidence but there doesn't appear to be any good reason to assume that is the "only" or even "best" explanation. If it is a coincidence, it is a remarkably appropriate one.