Bobzammel

Studying some of the OT prophetic books recently, I've noticed that some of the prophecies Jesus apparentally fufilled were already fufilled by other characters.

The "Righteous Branch from the tree of Jesse" stated in Isiah is clearly Joshua, the Priest-King. This is stated quite clearly in Zechariah, where Joshua is mentioned as being a Branch two times. He also apparentally was related to David, so he's part of the "Root of Jesse".
Next we have Cyrus. In Isiah 45:1, Cyrus is clearly referred to as a Messiah, if one goes back and studies the original Jewish text. Cyrus is also the annointed referred to (retroactively?) in Daniel.
Now we have Immanuel("God with us"). Now, the fact that this is not a prophecy of a Virgin birth has already been brought up many times. A Child is born in the next chapter, but interestingly is given a different name. However, it is probable they are the same child, as Isiah gives similar prophecies for each: Between his birth and his ability to discern, the rival empires will be destroyed. So how do we reconcile the two different names? Simple. The names are intended as symbolism, although they both belong to the same child. The Child's name Immanuel states that God is with Ahaz, but his other name--Maharalshazabaz(sp) means ruin and spoil--to Ahaz's enemies.
Finally, we come to the Suffering Servant. Although I am stretching this a bit, the original Hebrew seems to indicate that the "Suffering Servant" is in fact very ill, and not tortured or the like.
In this case, one can draw a parrarel to King Hezekiah. At one point of the bible-and this is documented in at least three books--Hezekiah becomes very sick. God, through Isiah, tells him that he's going to die. However Isiah humbles himself, and God "prolongs his days"--to another fifteen years.

godfry n. glad

Careful, now...

Joshua = Jesus

Same name, different means of getting to the English language.

godfry n. glad

Celsus

Also, messiah = annointed. All kings of Judah and Israel were essentially "messiahs"

Joel

Bobzammel

Yes, but the Joshua in question was the son of Jehozadak, the High Priest.

Also, it's possible that the statement could have been referring to Zerubbel as well.

Look also at Haggai, in which YHWH has high praises for Zerrubel.

Iasion

Greetings all,

joejoejoe wrote:
This is said often, but what is the actual evidence for it?

Sure, the names may be similar, they may be related,
but

In the Greek, Jesus is Iesous (not sure how to do Greek alphabet here yet), and there is the earlier figure Iasius (mentioned by Diodorus) who has similarities with Iesous.

So,
my question is :

is Joshua (Aramaic, Hebrew?) really EQUAL to Iesous?

or is it merely an ASSUMPTION that he must have been called Joshua because he was (supposedly) from Jewish/Aramaic culture?

Quentin David Jones

Celsus

Just a clarification. I did not write:

godfry n. glad did. Still, that's an interesting question. Anyone care to bite?

Joel

Liquidrage

Here is my understanding of this:

In Hebrew Joshua, Jeshua are Yehoshua.
IESOUS is Greek a transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua. It is further transliterated into English and based on context becomes Jesus, Joshua and even Justus(Colossians 4:11)

Obviously I'm not even going to try to write Hebrew in "l33t sp3/\|<" like some here can, nor will I attempt Greek.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings,

oops, sorry joe - got my quotes mixed up

Liquidrage wrote :

Indeed yes, I understand the equivalence of the names, but I am doubtful about the original form and use of the name.

In other words, I wonder whether it all started with a Jewish Yehoshua as the FIRST form of the name, later transliterated in Iesous.

Put another way, is there any evidence of Jewish or Aramaic use of the name Yehoshua BEFORE Iesous was used?

I don't think so.

I see an early Greek mythical figure called "Iasius" (known even in Homeric times).

I see early Christian writings, all apparently in Greek, using the name "Iesous".

Then, it appears that it was CONCLUDED, ASSUMED, decided, that as this person was allegedly of Jewish descent, he MUST have been called "Yehoshua".

But, when was the first (not in Greek) writing that actually uses the Jewish form "Yehoshua"?

Quentin

Liquidrage

Iasion,

Perhaps I am failing to see what you are asking.

Originally you asked what is the evidence that Jesus and Joshua are the same name.

The Greek name Iesous is the name used for the Hebrew name Yehoshua. The OT was translated into Greek a few hundred years before the period Jesus was alleged to have lived. Yehoshua was transliterated as Iesous.
In the later Greek texts Iesous is also the name used to name Jesus.

I don't see how this could be taken any other way.

Celsus

How do early Greek manuscripts of Sirach spell the name of the author ("Jesus" the son of Sirach)?

If "Iesous", then the answer should be fairly obvious, no?

Joel

ex-joejoejoe