unregistered_user_1

The first post on this RR thread has an interesting commentary about how some xians even don't believe the resurrection.

That article has a comment about a book called: "The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry" by Gerd Lüdemann

Though naturally, those people are ticked off at that article!

emeraldsforest

I am not sure, but I believe you are trying to say that "Jesus" is an English translation the name given by the interpreter of the writer of Mark, hence Matthew since it is now shown to be written after Mark copying that writer.
"Jesus" is not an English name that I have ever heard of.

It doesn't make sense to me that "Yeshua" becomes "Jesus".

Let me explain. The German, "Kinder" is prounced "Keenter" yet the English pronounce it "kinder". Very easily recognized as the same word and realized that accents slowly change the phonetics, but not by much. Another example is German phonetic "glaass" English "glAss".

In Japanese it is "Compuutaa" In English Computer Japanese phonetic "icu kureemu" English Ice Cream

The "a" in Yeshua is nothing like "s" in Jesus. So phonetically, the translation makes no sense to me. The same being the "J" sound in english to the "Ye" sound in Yeshua makes no sense to me.


The perpetrators would be the Church leaders of the third and fourth centuries who put the New Testament together. Certainly not the Jews and the peoples of Early christianity would have no reason to either.

It is the later peoples of centuries after christianity started that knew Zeus to be mythical, that would be startled to know that "Jesus" was a form of the word Zeus. Church leaders recognizing this would come up with the translation that "Jesus" was a form of Yeshua or Joshua. But call me crazy, it is just a hunch and I smell another rat.

And who would have guessed that "Jesus" is a most likely made up historical character either? Certainly I would have thought that a crazy idea before I did further examination of facts gathered.


I haven't thought enough on this one. But my hunch tells me this happened before the author of Matthew wrote. Perhaps the person who wrote the ending of Mark (Mark 16 onward)?

emeralds

Jagella

Isn’t that odd? I know Christians that immediately scoff at claims of UFO abductions and Bigfoot sightings, yet they accept even weaker evidence for their own beliefs. I suppose the difference is that they see no reward for believing in ETs or Sasquatch, but Christianity promises an eternal paradise.

Jagella

Toto

Jesus is the anglicized form of the Greek Iesous. We know this because the Jews who translated their scriptures into the Greek Septuagint translated Joshua as Iesous. [Greek does not have an "sh" sound, and the 'us' at the end is the Greek masculine noun ending.

Zeus is nothing like Iesous.

emeraldsforest

Thank you for the input.

First, Do you know where I can find information on the original Septuagint where we find the Jewish writers, used the word Iesous for the Greeks to understand the name Joshua? And I am not doubting you know of this, but do you know of this first hand?

Second, if this were true, then why in our English translation of the Old Testament do we not have the word Jesus instead of Joshua? It wasn't Jesus who stopped the sun and the moon, it was Joshua right? I am sure that resources claim the King James was translated from the Septuagint right?

Third, this does not explain the Ie vs J sound.

Fourth, many of our English words use the 's' as a 'z' sound as with the first 's' in Je's'us, or exci's'e. If there were some reason for the "Je" in Greek to mean (a part of, son of, etc..) and you add it to the word "Zeus". and you explain the "Ie" in Iesous. then how is JeZeus nothing like Iesous?

Lastly, Please don't think I am being a pest, because I really want to find out if at all possible. But it is proclaimed in the New Testament that the disciples went into Greece to spread christianity. They mention Zeus in the bible. Could it not be possible that they tried to assimilate the two religions by using "Je's'us"? Zeus was known as the protector of all mankind, where good and evil came from and God of weather. Jupiter the equivilent in Rome.

emeralds

Toto

Septuagint online

Derivation of Jesus from Joshua

No - the KJV was based on Hebrew texts for the so-called Old Testament, and Greek texts for the New Testament.

From the nameofjesus link above

The question has been raised as to why the names Joshua and Jesus are translated in Hebrew vs. Greek, which tends to obsure the fact that Jesus Christ did have the same name as Joshua son of Nun. There is no good reason - it is just tradition.

The J sound is the English modern pronunciation. J and initial I would have been pronounced like Y.

That's English, not Greek. Greek does not confuse the S and Z sounds. Ie is not "son" in Greek.

If it is possible, you need some more evidence than the facts that some sounds in their names are similar in the modern English pronunciation. You need to learn a little bit more about languages and linguistics.

emeraldsforest

Thank you for this information. It seems the Septuagint is just as messed up as everything else and that no one really knows anything. What a joke.

I grew up totally believing in the inerrancy of the bible. I get new surpises every day.

With all of the mixups and unknowns, I would surmise that little is concrete about the originals of the bible at all. This should be broadcast on television about how little we know and about the people who made the decisions on what was to be broadcast as known.

Perhaps one day, we will wake up and do so. That would certainly bring down the fundamentalists.

After reading about all of the mixups with the septuagint and New Testament, I am left with not much. The name was used as Jesu for hundreds of years, which would seem to throw a big wrench into my thoughts of phonetics, but I am told this is from the French who do not pronounce their 's's at the end of word like au jus! According to Oxford Dictionary.

Probabilities are I may never know the answer to this. I think looking toward the Greek language would be my best chance, however, I won't count on it.

Lastly, I can't imagine such a supposedly powerful name being changed much in the first four hundred years of christianity. Is the proclaimed base meaning for the word "Jesus" fairly synonomous with the name "Christ"? Why did they use Christ even moreso than "Jesus"? hmmmm.

emeralds :banghead:

Chili

First and last name. First name of the particular and last name of the universal as in Emeralds Christ. :angel:

Toto

Jesus and Christ have nothing in common. I'm not sure why you think that they used Christ even more than Jesus.

"Jesus" means roughly "Savior" or "YHWH saves". It was a very common name at the time.

"Christ" is derived from the Greek word for "oily" or "annointed with oil". It corresponds to the Hebrew derived Messiah. All of the Hebrew kings were annointed with oil (a tradition that John Ashcroft kept up), so the Christ or Messiah was expected to be a worldly king annointed with oil to symbolize his selection by God to lead his chosen people.

However, it is not clear if the earlist mention of Jesus was to Jesus "Christos" (Jesus the Messiah) or Jesus "Chrestos" - Jesus the Good. Christos and Chrestos would have been pronounced the same in late 1st c. Koine Greek.

Just to keep you confused.

emeraldsforest

Only in the fact that we don't say Jesusianity, or that people don't call themselves Jesusians. Quite odd I think really how this happened.

Thank you again for your revealing input.
emeralds :thumbs: