Koine is no longer the lingua franca of the Western world, English is.
So at the very least, Jesus should be referred to as Joshua, and better yet, as Yeshua.
Anything else robs Jesus of his true ethnicity and religious heritage.
why dont we stop splitting theologicals hairs and get all religiously arrogant and indignant, I have heard all the arguments and came to the conclusion that they are a waste of time.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear Bernard, Sir Humphrey is not god!"
No hairsplitting involved, dude.
If I started calling Pablo Picasso "Paul Picasso", I think some Spaniards would have something to say about that. And my motives would be questioned.
When the world doesn't care about the 'Jesus' example, your Pablo example is pure fail.
shareI'm glad you feel in touch with the entire world. It spares me the chore of consulting Pew and Gallup polls.
Pablo's mother called him Pablo. What did Jesus's mother call him? I'm not asking your opinion, of course, just "the world's."
Completely agreed. It's not splitting hairs. His name isn't Jesus. You fools are calling your savior by the wrong name.
----------------------
Boopee doopee doop boop SEX
I call him Lord God
shareWhat do you imagine Mary called him when he was a teen?
I'd imagine if I had called my kids "Lord God" when they were teens, they would have gotten even bigger heads than they had already. Those teenagers. Think they know everything.
Imagine having a teen that actually did know everything
share
In all probability, even if Mary knew it at the time, she wouldn't have called him either Lord God or Jesus and would have still made sure he washed up before dinner.
What's your best guess as to what she called him?
Jesus derives from a Koine Greek name written as Ἰησοῦς and pronounced ee-ay-sooce'
You won't be happy until everyone agrees with you but you might keep in mind the fact that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek with this name. This is the name that the apostles spread throughout the world. It doesn't matter what his mother called him because she wasn't charged with carrying his name throughout the Hellenistic world. They used a version of his name that would not alienate the Gentiles, as Hebrew was already a dead language and was used only in a ceremonial fashion by a group that was notoriously hostile toward outsiders
It matters that he was as human as he was divine, and it matters that he was male. So why doesn't it matter that his social/religious/ethnic world was that of Jews practicing Judaism(s) in Palestine?
Why should Yeshua alienate the Gentiles and which Gentiles? All of them? Why, if so many of early Christianity's leaders and followers were Jews? Are you suggesting that "Jesus" was a marketing tool, a re-branding, that pandered to the religious or ethnic prejudices of Gentiles?
Yeshua was not just a Hebrew name but an Aramaic one; in fact, some scholars that it was chiefly an Aramaization of the Hebrew Yehoshua. Thus your linguistic argument is moot. Aramaic was widely used by Christians from ancient times and it is still spoken in dwindling numbers by some Christians of the Middle East/West Asia.
How could the Jews be described as "notoriously hostile toward outsiders" when so many assimilated, ignored rabbinic authority and Pentateuchal injunctions, and/or created Christianity? (Paul, James, most authors of the Gospels, Peter etc etc)?
You're correct
shareJames is another Greek name used by a Galilean
shareAll Jews. Imagine this: You, Shimon, are henceforth renamed [the Aramaic] Kaypha, and upon this stone I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol [Hebrew for dark, lifeless, limbo-like netherworld] will not withstand it.
Does anything about that offend you?
To recognize their Jewishness is to open the door wider to an acknowledgment of the utter indebtedness of Christianity to Jews and Judaism, indeed the emergence of Christianity as a Jewish reform movement. That, in turn, sparks uneasy questions about the sheer contingency of Christianity itself: without Jews and Judaism, could there have been Jesus and Christianity?
It says: You Shimon(Hebrew) will be called Petros(Greek) and upon this Petra(Greek) I will build my church.
It's a play on Greek words.
Petros means rock/pebble
Petra means boulder
Kayphas is Aramaic for rock and the name that Paul uses for Peter
You mean Ya'akov, don't you? Jews did not call themselves James in first century CE Palestine.
In other words, the first Christian bishop of Jerusalem was a Jew.
Of course he was a jew. Was this an argument or were you just strengthening my previous statement?
shareI'm asking for your comment on the wider implications of all this:
To recognize their Jewishness is to open the door wider to an acknowledgment of the utter indebtedness of Christianity to Jews and Judaism, indeed the emergence of Christianity as a Jewish reform movement. That, in turn, sparks uneasy questions about the sheer contingency of Christianity itself: without Jews and Judaism, could there have been Jesus and Christianity?
You are correct again. I wasn't disputing that
sharePaul was an Israelite from Tarsus; which also used Aramaic but his name is derived from the Latin Paulus.
To which scholars are you referring? Judaism was/is not an evangelical religion, but after Christ, the apostles were commissioned to go tell the world. Most people in that culture had a Hebrew or Aramaic name, as well as a Greek name which would be used when speaking with the Roman authority or traveling within the Hellenistic culture. You can say my point is moot but it doesn't make your case any stronger. You asked a question but act like everyone who responds is ignorant. Are you just here to argue?
He was born "Saul", a Jew.
I'm here to discuss. Are you here to proselytize?
The scholarship to which I refer belong to the "ways that never parted" subgenre. Surely you've heard of it?
I was giving an educated view from actual scholars. I don't care about your doctrine. I just tried to help you understand the reason for the name shift but I still get the feeling that you will argue with anything I say.
D.A. Carson
William Kendriksen
Edmond Hiebert
Colin Kruse
Daniel B. Wallace
I have sources, you have a movement
I don't have a "doctrine", you do.
Your "actual scholars" are New Testament theologians, not scholars immersed in the scientific study of the Hellenistic cultures of the Mediterranean and West Asia.
Where did you get the idea I have a "movement"? How ridiculous. Christians are the ones with movements, while scientific studies of the ancient world chiefly involve networks of professionals.
A full list of my sources would fill more than a single post here, but a representative example would include:
Averil Cameron
Martin Goodman
Paula Fredriksen
Daniel Boyarin
John G. Gager
Adam H Becker
Gedaliah Stroumsa
Michael Fishbane
Philip Alexander
Annette Yoshiko Reed
Sabino Chiala
Gabriele Boccaccini
Helge S Kvanvig
Seth Schwartz
Raymond E Brown
Saul Lieberman
Richard Kalmin
Geza Vermes
Jacob Neusner
John J Collins
EP Sanders
Wayne Meeks
A Saldarini
Richard Baukham
ER Goodenough
Michael Avi-Yonah
HJ Drijvers
Christine Hayes
Shlomo Pines
Alan F Segal
Joan E Taylor
Charles A Gieschen
James Charlesworth
Scholar: specialist in a particular branch of study.
I asked you to cite sources and then cites a few when you chose not to respond. Are you saying that people who study the bible are irrelevant in this discussion? I thought we were talking about the New Testament; which requires knowledge of the Old Testament and surrounding culture.
LOL @ Israelite. Paul was not an Israelite, he was a Jew. Israelite is commonly used for the Iron Age ancestors of Jews and doesn't extend past the Babylonian captivity.
In the first century, there was no single Judaism. Some forms do appear to have been at least somewhat evangelical (preaching "good news" and soliciting membership based on faith in correct doctrines). Then there's the case of the Hasmonean dynasty, which expanded through forced conversions.
Most Jews didn't have Greek names, although the elite tended to. Unless one is trying to deracinate them, the logical course is to address them as they would have been addressed by others.
Your list of consulted sources shows that you ARE ignorant - insofar as the scientific study of religion is concerned.
re: Israelite. Well if we make the distinction that “Israelite” is to mean a member of the House of Israel then Paul can be both a Jew (of the tribe of Judah) and an Israelite. Wasn’t Paul also a “Benja-mite” (of the tribe of Benjamin)?
re: Jesus. I agree that Jesus is a Greek name and his mother would have never used it. Considering the constant rebelling against Greco-Roman assimilation it is unlikely for most Jews to have both Hebrew and Greek names. I believe that Paul was an exception in having dual citizenship (Jewish and Roman).
While I realize that the NT books are all written in Greek I have never understood why they changed the name. Most of the OT books were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Most of the 12 disciples were uneducated Jews (there are exceptions like Matthew, Judas, etc.) and probably did not know much about reading or writing in any language. Luke (a Greek physician) and Paul were educated. Luke would have written in Greek but became a convert only years after the resurrection and as such never heard of Jesus prior to that. His gospel account must have been the retelling of one of the original disciples rather than firsthand. Paul was apparently a prolific speaker/writer. He could have written in multiple languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc.) but that still does not explain why the Greek name (Jesus) was applied throughout the NT.
Just my humble thoughts.
It's very likely that Paul was the son of slaves who had been given their freedom which I understand is how he was also a Roman citizen as such was given to the children of former slaves back then. Also he was from Tarsus which is now part of Turkey. As far as names of various people I don't see how it matters if it's written in the original spelling or a translation i.e.Jesus = Joshua or Yeshua. As long as we all know who is being talked about. What is of more importance (I think) is that a lot of people seem to think that Christ was his last name, which it wasn't. Christ (or Christos in the Greek) means "the anointed one" or "The Messiah." It's a descriptive title meant to acknowledge his divine nature not a surname. There are other such names in the Bible. Satan for example means "Adversary." It's not his name, but a description of what he is in opposition to God's plans for humanity.
shareMy understanding on Paul's Roman citizenship was because Tarsus welcomed the Romans and helped them take surrounding cities. In return, the inhabitants of Tarsus were given citizenship. The cities that resisted had no rights
sharePaul was an Israelite from Tarsus; which also used Aramaic but his name is derived from the Latin Paulus
I don't know what Paul's skin tone has to do with anything but I do not recall any place in which it states that he was "as black as an Ethiopian." He was asked if he was "The Egyptian" who was leading a revolt; which is concurrent with the accounts of Flavious Josephus regarding multiple small uprisings among the Jewish community around that time, and ultimately led to the destruction on Jerusalem by the Romans.
Furthermore, I do not see the logic behind paul writing in Hebrew to European churches, nor do I agree that the original manuscripts are being held in present day Israel.
i know two different people who has seen & can go see again those manuscripts.
but you're right. i confused ethiopian with egyptain.
excuse me but the NT was originally in hebrew. then just like the rest of the bible (including OT), it was translated to mostly greek with some latin & aramaic. then finally english.
the original manuscripts are in hebrew & held in israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5WxY_hZDtA
there are 10 half hour episdoes in all but that part 6 is all you need to get the idea about how obvious it is that the NT was originally in hebrew since matthew & others are full of what is called hebrewisms as well as hebrew puns & expressions that dont really work well in greek OR english.
they would call him either yehoshua or YHVH (said like yewah) or some even dared to say jehovah before the rabbis stamped that one out.
of course there is nothing wrong with his gentile nickname jesus either. so long as we all know who we're talking about...our messiah/saviour/god!
in fact, its the greek that screwed us up. in matt & in luke there are two lineages. matt in english says jospeh husband of mary. but thats wrong. this is the father of mary not the husband.(if this joseph had been the husband, then A jesus had no link to david & B jesus would have been 13 not 14 generation) matt shows mary's line directly linking jesus to david & also making the prophetic 14 generations (since this joseph is her father not husband) whereas luke shows joseph's line. there are in fact 3 josephs in that family. mary's father. mary's husband. the great great great great ...um great (5 times i think?) grandfather of mary's husband....as seen in luke.
but the greek merely used a word that could have meant any person & then the english thought oh thats joseph the husband. but in hebrew AND aramic...its father. so yeah, different guy!
you'll see that laid out in the first couple episodes of the above link if you wish.
then there is unfortunately zachariah, an OT book. in english this guy makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever! its all about an evil woman in a basket with a lead lid.....WHAT?!?!?!
but in hebrew the word for woman & the word for fire are EXACTLY the same except for a tiny little . in the word fire, easily overlooked or even not used at all.
now an evil fire in a basket with a lead lid makes a lot more sense. also the length of this container matches exactly one type of missle we have today & almost exactly another missle type. this passage is talking about missles...not bad girls! (it also prophecies about the twin towers, if you wish to see the whole thing, see the links below altogether would be just over half an hour.)
start at about 14 minutes in as that is when the new section starts...although the entire 11 part series is great but just the part about zechariah & the twin towers starts at 14 minutes in approx..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q9bSTXPFww
next bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ra9pmsHEc
final bit the first 6 or 7 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JxFAt2yYnM
wow.
furthermore, this was made just after the towers went down but before the prophecy of damascus in ruins came true (that would be on july 18 2012 when damascus was hit with not one but two evil women in baskets with lead lids...or...ya know...just like how zechariah said 2 of them would come.)
Right. OK. Who fckd with IMDb now? WOW!
I suppose if you believe in mythological Jewish demigods then I'd be inclined to agree, but mythology is something I tend not to take literally.
share[deleted]
Look, at this point the name "Jesus" is far too ingrained into our culture for us to switch to the more accurate "Yeshua". And really, "Joshua" would be just as inaccurate as "Jesus" is.
shareI think you are right in that most English speaking people have never even given it a second thought. Still I'd like to think that humanity can over time adjust their historical perceptions as new (sometimes old) revelations become available.
shareWhile I understand your point, changing a name to suit the culture or the time period is a well worn tradition. There is an Asian lady down the road from me who has her first name registered as "Julie", for the full list of reason you'd have to ask her.
There's many things which should be changed. Santa been related to Jesus for example; I've meet children who think Santa is actually the father of Jesus. Easter Bunnies who crap out chocolate eggs ...... I have had problems understanding this since I was very young. My niece thinks it's normal but then thinks a goose dropping golden eggs is a load of &^@#. Why? Because she's never seen a golden egg.
It's not about the name or how it's said but whether the people communicating understand who their discussion is about.
That said, who cares. The bible is a great fairy tale, nothing more, and Jesus was simply a character. The fact that some people have raised it to a religion means little except to say there's still too many uneducated souls walking this planet. At least Scientology is a little more "new age".
We should start calling him and his apostles
J-Bones & the A-Pops and retell the bible as if they were a traveling troupe of acapella singers
[deleted]
Stop this nonsense. First of all God was the one who separated one language into different languages. Eventhough such separation was a result of sin (construction of the tower) God does not say that there is only one true language - Hebrew. And as we know each name is reendered differently in each language.
Second of all, New Testament was originally written in two languages - Hebrew and Greek. And His name in original Greek language was written asἸησοῦς (Iēsous) and not Joshua or Yeshua. Start reading Bible instead of following false teachings, churches and pastors. In the Bible there is no stress on the correct/incorrect pronunciation of His name.