Loomis

That’s nothing. I have evidence of Jebus Worship that predates Jebus.

It’s in Deuteronomy 34:9-12That section was probably added later to diss/circumvent Jebus worship.

Here’s an example of that type of Jebus worship from Sirach 46:1-6
See? Jebus is portrayed as a savior figure and a defender of Israel.


Now get a load of Sibylline Oracle 5:345
See?

It’s all the same Jebus. :facepalm:

Jebus (your Lord and savior) is the same Jebus who made the son stand still.

Jebus (your Lord and savior) is the same Jebus who was worshipped in Sirach 46:1-6. :wave:

The Jebus worshippers who worshipped your Jebus were dissed in Deuteronomy 34:9-12 by a reviser long before your Jebus was born.

jakejonesiv

Hi Loomis,

Those are some good observations. Do you see a pre-Christian Joshua revidicus expectation?

Jake

Loomis

I don’t like to think in terms of what Believers believed. I like to think in terms of ‘what was the author trying to say?’ That way I can set aside the issue of if the author was a religious idiot, a deceptive liar, or if he was just a creative person writing amusing stories.

Are you familiar with this?

Zechariah 3 LXX
And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and the Devil stood on his right hand to resist him.

Compare …

Hebrews 4:14
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

Do you see the similarities? In both episodes the character is called Jesus; he is portrayed as a high priest from heaven who is temped by Satan and made sinless by God. Evidently this early ‘Jesus’ evolved over time and became the ‘Jesus’ we have today.

Read this:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/oth...tianity/Joshua

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13461451/The-Cult-of-Joshua

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...oshuaCult1.php

The Jesus/ Joshua similarities are most prevalent in Hebrews. By contrast, Paul’s version of ‘Christ’ seems very different. It seems to be based on the vagueness and ambiguities that were introduced when the name ‘Yahweh’ was replaced with ‘the LORD’ in the LXX.

Did Paul ever really talk about a ‘Jesus?’ Or was he just talking about a ‘the LORD’? Maybe the two ideas were combined later.

Note that the author of Hebrews definitely made a distinction between ‘the LORD’ and Jesus/Joshua. But Paul seems to think that ‘Christ’ and ‘the LORD’ are the same character.

Remember, I’m not suggesting that anyone actually believed anything. I’m simply speculating that this is what the authors wanted us to think (maybe only from a literary slant) when they wrote what they wrote.

bacht

I agree the Joshua/Jesus connection is interesting, but Zechariah was apparently referring to a real priest (mentioned also by Haggai) at the time of the establishment of the new foundation for the temple (ca 520 bce). These prophets were optimistically predicting a new age of renewal in Israel under two "anointed" leaders, secular (governor Zerubbabel) and spiritual (Joshua). Neither were heard of again afaik.

I think the original Joshua is a better archetype, "crossing over" the river Jordan and leading his people into the Promised Land (ie. life after death)

jakejonesiv

Thanks for the links! I agree. I find this too, even in Refutation of All Heresies (Hippolytus) 5.2. The context is Jesus' spirit, but the reference is certainly to Joshua 3:7-17. There is an identity between Joshua and Jesus.

I think G.J.P.J. Bolland came pretty close in De Evangelische Jozua, although I would not defend him at all points.
These gospels traditions that were extant in Rome by the time of Justin evolved from a pre-Christian "Joshua Messiah" cult that arose from an Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of the Septuagint. Joshua was the guide to the Jerusalem of the Exodus, Jesus is a guide to the New Jerusalem. There was a great deal of significance given to the name of Jesus by Philo of Alexandria, "De Mutt. Nom.", 21 (On the Change of Names, Chapter 21). This line of thought was followed by Justin, Chapter 75 of Dialogue with Trypho. According to Dialogue, chapters 3 and 7, he allegedly met a mysterious old man near the seashore (chapter 3), most likely of Ephesus. This old man taught Justin how to read the scriptures in an allegorical manner (Chapter 7 -The Knowledge of Truth to Be Sought from the Prophets Alone).

Jake

Sea

The translation you quoted obscured things a bit. Both passages are definitely speaking of Joshua son of Nun.

"Now Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with the spirit of wisdom, since Moses had laid his hands upon him; and so the Israelites gave him their obedience, thus carrying out the LORD'S command to Moses." Deut 34:9 NAB

"Valiant leader was JOSHUA, son of Nun, assistant to Moses in the prophetic office, Formed to be, as his name implies, the great savior of God's chosen ones, To punish the enemy and to win the inheritance for Israel." Sir 46:1

Joshua was the leader of Israel after Moses died and led his people to great military victories on the campaign to take their "promised land." So the story goes anyway. There's no worship going on here, beyond the normal praise of a great national hero. The name "Joshua" probably became so popular because of these stories.

There's no "dissing" here. The chapter is about the death of Moses and just says Moses was the greatest prophet of Israel who passed the torch onto Joshua.

The Sibylline Oracles do seem to connect Joshua son of Nun with Jesus, but so far as we know some Christians wrote that in the Common Era. Christians are well known for quote mining and misreading the Jewish scriptures.

Sea

Yep. Zerubbabel and Joshua son of Jehozadak were both crowned in Zech 6 with the expectation Zerubbabel would be the special Branch of David -- what we call the Messiah -- who would continue the dynasty.

Zerubbabel evidently flopped, so his name was taken out of the crowning part which gave the impression Joshua son of Jehozadak was supposed to be the special Messiah. Funny how most apologists don't even bother claiming this prophecy.

As I understand it, Joshua was a very common name. Might as well make a big deal out of a string of Johns in American history.

show_no_mercy

I think Loomis is making the point that "Joshua" or "Yehoshua" or "Yeshua" cannot be rendered in Greek so it is transliterated as "Jesus".

There is no "Joshua" in the LXX. Only Jesus.

Sea

It would nice if English Bibles would use the same transliteration of the name throughout the whole Bible. I can get behind that!

Loomis

Joshua was originally named Hoshea but Moses gave him the name Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=31;

The same motif is found in Philippians 2:8-9

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0;&version=31;