alexander garcia
Active Member
For anyone that thinks that Jesus is the king of the Jews. Please try to explain how you get by the FACT that the name is only about 400 years old NOT 2000?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus a 400 year old name
- Thread starter alexander garcia
- Start date
Not sure where you're getting that from, but the Latin version, Iesu, is used in the Vulgate, which dates back to the 5th Century. I'm sure there are other references to Jesus even earlier, but I'll leave that to the people here who know early Christian history better than I do.
alexander garcia
Active Member
Hi, Jesus is English not Latin! and the Latin is not Latin but a copy of the Greek. go to both and show the (J) NOT there! Iesous is GREEK, Not Hebrew! As to the claim that it is the same as Yahshua, just look at the 6th book of your Bible is it the book of Jesus? NO!
Yes, they have Christianity in other countries, too.
Is it supposed to be?
I'm not sure what point you're getting at. I don't think anyone's claimed that Jesus was called "Jesus" by his family and friends. The claim is that the person referred to in English as "Jesus" (and in Russian as "Иисус", in Welsh as "íosa", and many other names in many other languages) was the King of the Jews. The English language and the letter "j" didn't exist at the time, but they're used today to refer to the person that some people consider to be historical.
In that regard, it's no different than using "Tutenkhamun" to describe the Egyptian Pharoah (whose written language didn't have any letters as we know them at all), or "Ghenghis Khan" to describe the Mongol Emperor (whose name is actually pronounced more like "Chinggiss").
I don't see the issue.
alexander garcia
Active Member
Well if Jesus and Johshua are the same name as Christians claim YES it is suppose to be.
I can imagine that it was a pretty common name.
It sounds like you've got an issue with the fact that the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew, but the New Testament mainly comes from the Greek. I don't see how this has bearing on the truth or falsehood of the Bible.
I do have issues about the historicity of the New and Old Testaments, but this isn't one of them.
alexander garcia
Active Member
My point is that you don't call Tutenkhamun Harry and Ghenghis Khan you don't call Emperor big G. But for some reason all over the world the name is in many variations but of a Greek name not a Hebrew name. My name is Alexander if i go to China it does not turn into chin wong. But as you admitted the (J) did not exsist at the time so you prove my point Jesus is only about 400 years old not 2000.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
lol I'm tired and read that as, "Chiggins"... sounds like a toffs name.
alexander garcia
Active Member
The New Testament was NOT written in Greek! The Greek is False in so many points! Have you read ACTS? I'm sure you have so look at it and explain Why a Roman Would ask a Hebrew if he could speak Greek? Pretty stupid if that is what he was speaking as the Christians claim. Explain why Saul in his vision says that the voice that spoke to him spoke Hebrew and called him Saul not Paul?
I suspect we can blame Constantine I for that (though I could be wrong).
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Totally.
LOL!
When stories of Emperor Chinggiss came to the West, he became Ghengis.
When stories of Master Kung came to the West, he became Confucius.
When stories of Yeshu/Yeshua came to the West, he became Jesus.
How are these instances any different, and what bearing does the butchering of a person's name by European translators have on the actual existence of the person in question?
The use of Greek as an everyday language was widespread in the Roman empire... even in Rome itself. It was relatively common to have Roman soldiers who could speak Greek but not Latin.
alexander garcia
Active Member
Acts 21:37 Saul is asking a Roman if he can speak to him. The Roman answers CAN YOU SPEAK GREEK? So it stands to reason that he was NOT speaking GREEK!
alexander garcia
Active Member
I will try and explain my point better. I am a Jew that cares about what the Scriptures say not what others say they say. Be it Jew or Christian. Be it Sages or Scholars. I am sorry to say that Jews are deceived as the Christian in so many points.
The Roman soldier also asked him if he was an Egyptian. Is that significant, too?
The Pauline Epistles were written in Greek, and the Bible describes Saul/Paul as a Jew. I don't see anything particularily implausible about a person knowing both the local language of his people and the predominant language of the region.
A Hebrew in 1st Century Judea writing in Greek doesn't surprise me any more than a Mexican or Quebecois writing in English today would suprise me.
So why are you worried so much about what seems to me to be artifacts of translation, i.e. what others say the Scriptures say in a new language?