• 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

Godwilling

Organic, kinetic learner
According to the Greek Scriptures, or New Testament, Jesus was born in Bethlehem in a Jewish family. He was known by the name Issa which is short for Joshua as Bob is short for Robert.

The name Joshua is as Hebrew as Daniel and Josheph while Jesus is not. If his name was indeed Issa and, therefore, Joshua why call him Jesus which is simply the Spanish version of the Greek degeneration of the name Issa?
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
According to the Greek Scriptures, or New Testament, Jesus was born in Bethlehem in a Jewish family. He was known by the name Issa which is short for Jacob as Bob is short for Robert.

The name Jacob is as Hebrew as Daniel and Josheph while Jesus is not. If his name was indeed Issa and, therefore, Jacob why call him Jesus which is simply the Spanish version of the Greek degeneration of the name Issa?
Where are we told that he was known as Issa? As far as I know, that only occurs in dubious sources that supposedly originate in India.

As for the name Jesus, it was Yeshua. Through the translation process to Greek, Latin, French, English, it was changed to Jesus. If I remember the history correctly, it was in French that the name changed because of a mistranslation.
 

Godwilling

Organic, kinetic learner
Where are we told that he was known as Issa? As far as I know, that only occurs in dubious sources that supposedly originate in India.

As for the name Jesus, it was Yeshua. Through the translation process to Greek, Latin, French, English, it was changed to Jesus. If I remember the history correctly, it was in French that the name changed because of a mistranslation.
Issa is short of Joshua even at present, and the name Joshua is a perfectly well known and Anglisized Hebrew name. Why then call such an important religious Christian figure by a misnomer?
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Issa is short of Joshua even at present, and the name Joshua is a perfectly well known and Anglisized Hebrew name. Why then call such an important religious Christian figure by a misnomer?
Because that wasn't his name to begin with. It was Yeshua. That wasn't shortened to Issa. Maybe Yeshu, but not Issa. We really are talking about Aramaic here though, as that is what Jesus would have spoken.

Issa, as far as I know, is Arabic.

So why do people call Yeshua Jesus? Because that is what it has been translated to. We get mistranslations from time to time when going through multiple languages. He is now recognized as Jesus. I don't think it really makes a big difference.
 

Godwilling

Organic, kinetic learner
Because that wasn't his name to begin with. It was Yeshua. That wasn't shortened to Issa. Maybe Yeshu, but not Issa. We really are talking about Aramaic here though, as that is what Jesus would have spoken.
Yeshua in Hebrew translates as Joshua in English and Josué in Spanish


Issa, as far as I know, is Arabic.
That is how they refer to Jesus, which is probably more accurate than Jesus given that their names are often similar, share the same root, that many Jews have lived amongst Arabs since before Jesus/Joshua, and that Jesus/Joshua/Issa is one of the Muslims holy prophets


So why do people call Yeshua Jesus? Because that is what it has been translated to. We get mistranslations from time to time when going through multiple languages. He is now recognized as Jesus. I don't think it really makes a big difference.
If we can't even get the name of our god correctly from the sources we accept as reliable, what can we assert is correct from those sources?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Yeshua in Hebrew translates as Joshua in English and Josué in Spanish.

Yet you refer to the Greek Scriptures in the OP, and the Latin and German translations were influential as well for English and Spanish :)D) translations.

Man, you're killing me with the Spanish. :biglaugh:

SO, do you know what the Greek spelling and pronounciation is for "Yeshua?":D
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Yeshua in Hebrew translates as Joshua in English and Josué in Spanish
Why does the Spanish matter here?
That is how they refer to Jesus, which is probably more accurate than Jesus given that their names are often similar, share the same root, that many Jews have lived amongst Arabs since before Jesus/Joshua, and that Jesus/Joshua/Issa is one of the Muslims holy prophets
We are not talking about Muslims. We are not talking about Arabs in general. We are talking about a Palestinian Jew, who spoke Aramaic. So the Arabic really doesn't factor in here. Which is why I believe that Issa, being that it is Arabic, simply doesn't factor in here. We don't see the name being used in the Greek. We don't see it being used for Jesus until quite some time in dubious accounts, or in different languages.

I really see no reason then to assume that Jesus was ever called Issa except when his name was translated to a different language.



If we can't even get the name of our god correctly from the sources we accept as reliable, what can we assert is correct from those sources?
Jesus is correct enough. It is a name. And it's not like we are getting it wrong. It is not wrong to refer to Jesus, in the English, as Jesus.

More so, just look at the name of God. Many call him God. There is Abba, Jehovah, Yawheh, etc. Many different names. Yet, it is all the same point.
 

Godwilling

Organic, kinetic learner
Yet you refer to the Greek Scriptures in the OP, and the Latin and German translations were influential as well for English and Spanish :)D) translations.

Man, you're killing me with the Spanish. :biglaugh:

SO, do you know what the Greek spelling and pronounciation is for "Yeshua?":D

The most influential Christian institution ever is the Roman Catholic Church, but it nearly vanished if not for the efforts of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragón also known in Spanish history as “Los reyes catolicos” (The Catholic Monarchs).
At the time of the “discovery” of the Americas, Spain possessed “La Dua Sicilia” (The Two Sicilies), which was all of Italy from Rome southwards, possessed Milan, and protected the Vatican states as vassal states.

At that time, Isabella signed the decree for the Spanish Inquisition at the advice of her confessor Torquemada and with him as the chief inquisitor. The Spanish Empire and the Spanish Inquisition did more to propagate Christianity than any other single factor in the history of Christianity. They forced conversion on the west coast of North America all the way to Alaska, as well than in all other Spanish possessions in North America, Central America, South America, and the Philippines.

Pope Innocence X was the Spanish Pope that divided the World between Portugal and Spain. When Spain took over Portugal and its possessions, Spain continued its campaign of conversion in all the former Portuguese colonies.

The failed invasion of Britain by the Spanish Armada ordered by Phillip II of Spain was little more than a religious war. Spain and the Catholic Church were one for centuries and Charles I of Spain (Carlos I of Spain Carl V of Germany were the same person) presided over the Diet of Warms where Luther was tried for heresy. Holland used Protestantism as a way of liberating itself from the Catholic Spain and from Phillip II of Spain who was the son of Charles I of Spain. It is ironic that Charles I was a German Hapsburg and that his son Phillip II was born and raised in Holland.

In all, the Spanish influence in shaping and propagating Christianity is evident and ignoring it is ignoring a big part of the history and development of Christianity. Christianity today bares little resemblance to the teachings and lives of Peter, Paul, and any one in Greece or Israel at the time, and a great deal to do with how Spain shaped Christianity and how others reacted to it.
 

Godwilling

Organic, kinetic learner
Why does the Spanish matter here?
We are talking about a Palestinian Jew, who spoke Aramaic.
Actually, Palestinian Jew would be a great contradiction. The word Palestine is a degeneration of the word Philistine. The Greek Empire extended to Egypt and the Greeks spelled Philistine as Phalestina (by use of the Cyrillic alphabet). The Romans did not use ph to form the sound “f” and when the Romans took over the Greek Empire they simply called Philistine/Phalestina Palestina, which in English, from French, became Palestine. Palestinians at present also do not call themselves Palestinians. They speak Arabic and the sound "P" does not exist in Arabic. The Palestinians call themselves Phalesteens, which is much closer to their original Philistain.

It is doubtful that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic is the language of the Assyrians and the Caldanies (in the Bible Assyrians and Chaldeans). That language was used in Israel during the first and second Babylonian invasions only to communicate with the invaders. Abraham spoke Aramaic because he was born in the city of Ur in former Chaldea and some of Genesis was written in Aramaic. Aramaic is presently spoken only in Iraq.

At the time of Herod, Roman governor of Palestine (not a Jewish choice of name), the ruling class was able to speak Greek in all of the eastern Roman Empire, including Egypt. That was the “lingua franca”. It would make more sense that Jesus/Yeshuah/Joshua spoke Hebrew and maybe also Greek, if he was very well educated, but certainly not Aramaic.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The most influential Christian institution ever is the Roman Catholic Church, but it nearly vanished if not for the efforts of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragón also known in Spanish history as “Los reyes catolicos” (The Catholic Monarchs).
At the time of the “discovery” of the Americas, Spain possessed “La Dua Sicilia” (The Two Sicilies), which was all of Italy from Rome southwards, possessed Milan, and protected the Vatican states as vassal states.

At that time, Isabella signed the decree for the Spanish Inquisition at the advice of her confessor Torquemada and with him as the chief inquisitor. The Spanish Empire and the Spanish Inquisition did more to propagate Christianity than any other single factor in the history of Christianity. They forced conversion on the west coast of North America all the way to Alaska, as well than in all other Spanish possessions in North America, Central America, South America, and the Philippines.

Pope Innocence X was the Spanish Pope that divided the World between Portugal and Spain. When Spain took over Portugal and its possessions, Spain continued its campaign of conversion in all the former Portuguese colonies.

The failed invasion of Britain by the Spanish Armada ordered by Phillip II of Spain was little more than a religious war. Spain and the Catholic Church were one for centuries and Charles I of Spain (Carlos I of Spain Carl V of Germany were the same person) presided over the Diet of Warms where Luther was tried for heresy. Holland used Protestantism as a way of liberating itself from the Catholic Spain and from Phillip II of Spain who was the son of Charles I of Spain. It is ironic that Charles I was a German Hapsburg and that his son Phillip II was born and raised in Holland.

In all, the Spanish influence in shaping and propagating Christianity is evident and ignoring it is ignoring a big part of the history and development of Christianity. Christianity today bares little resemblance to the teachings and lives of Peter, Paul, and any one in Greece or Israel at the time, and a great deal to do with how Spain shaped Christianity and how others reacted to it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the linguistic history of the word "Jesus."
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Actually, Palestinian Jew would be a great contradiction. The word Palestine is a degeneration of the word Philistine. The Greek Empire extended to Egypt and the Greeks spelled Philistine as Phalestina (by use of the Cyrillic alphabet). The Romans did not use ph to form the sound “f” and when the Romans took over the Greek Empire they simply called Philistine/Phalestina Palestina, which in English, from French, became Palestine. Palestinians at present also do not call themselves Palestinians. They speak Arabic and the sound "P" does not exist in Arabic. The Palestinians call themselves Phalesteens, which is much closer to their original Philistain.

It is doubtful that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic is the language of the Assyrians and the Caldanies (in the Bible Assyrians and Chaldeans). That language was used in Israel during the first and second Babylonian invasions only to communicate with the invaders. Abraham spoke Aramaic because he was born in the city of Ur in former Chaldea and some of Genesis was written in Aramaic. Aramaic is presently spoken only in Iraq.

At the time of Herod, Roman governor of Palestine (not a Jewish choice of name), the ruling class was able to speak Greek in all of the eastern Roman Empire, including Egypt. That was the “lingua franca”. It would make more sense that Jesus/Yeshuah/Joshua spoke Hebrew and maybe also Greek, if he was very well educated, but certainly not Aramaic.

Either your sources are horrible, you're misinterpreting them, or both.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Actually, Palestinian Jew would be a great contradiction. The word Palestine is a degeneration of the word Philistine. The Greek Empire extended to Egypt and the Greeks spelled Philistine as Phalestina (by use of the Cyrillic alphabet). The Romans did not use ph to form the sound “f” and when the Romans took over the Greek Empire they simply called Philistine/Phalestina Palestina, which in English, from French, became Palestine. Palestinians at present also do not call themselves Palestinians. They speak Arabic and the sound "P" does not exist in Arabic. The Palestinians call themselves Phalesteens, which is much closer to their original Philistain.
It isn't a contradiction. The reason being that I'm talking about a general area (Palestine), and a religion within that area (Judaism). They were Jews in Palestine. So they were a Palestinian Jew.

That area has been generally called Palestine since around the 5th Century B.C.E. It is also the standard term in scholarship to refer to this area. Thus, Palestinian Jew works perfectly. And it is a term that is used quite frequently in modern scholarship.
It is doubtful that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic is the language of the Assyrians and the Caldanies (in the Bible Assyrians and Chaldeans). That language was used in Israel during the first and second Babylonian invasions only to communicate with the invaders. Abraham spoke Aramaic because he was born in the city of Ur in former Chaldea and some of Genesis was written in Aramaic. Aramaic is presently spoken only in Iraq.
Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It is universally accepted that it was the primary language among Palestinian Jews. So yes, as virtually all scholars agree, Jesus spoke Aramaic.
At the time of Herod, Roman governor of Palestine (not a Jewish choice of name), the ruling class was able to speak Greek in all of the eastern Roman Empire, including Egypt. That was the “lingua franca”. It would make more sense that Jesus/Yeshuah/Joshua spoke Hebrew and maybe also Greek, if he was very well educated, but certainly not Aramaic.
Which Herod are you talking about? Herod the Great was not a Roman governor. He was the King of the Jews, and was the client king. His son was also a client king, not a Roman governor.

As for the term Palestine, it may not be the choice of Jews, but it is an accepted term by generally all scholars, including Jewish scholars.

As for Hebrew, it was not spoken widely. It was used for religious purposes, and not much else. Aramaic was the primary language for Jews in that area. That is accepted by virtually every scholar on the subject.

As for Jesus knowing Greek, probably not.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The word Jesus came to English from the Spanish Jesús, from the Latin Iesus, from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (pronounced ēsoûs).

So Jesus was never Yeshua? (Spanish set aside :D)

[As per your OP that somehow got Izza from Yeshua]
 

Godwilling

Organic, kinetic learner
It isn't a contradiction. The reason being that I'm talking about a general area (Palestine), and a religion within that area (Judaism). They were Jews in Palestine. So they were a Palestinian Jew.

That area has been generally called Palestine since around the 5th Century B.C.E. It is also the standard term in scholarship to refer to this area. Thus, Palestinian Jew works perfectly. And it is a term that is used quite frequently in modern scholarship.
Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It is universally accepted that it was the primary language among Palestinian Jews. So yes, as virtually all scholars agree, Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Which Herod are you talking about? Herod the Great was not a Roman governor. He was the King of the Jews, and was the client king. His son was also a client king, not a Roman governor.

As for the term Palestine, it may not be the choice of Jews, but it is an accepted term by generally all scholars, including Jewish scholars.

As for Hebrew, it was not spoken widely. It was used for religious purposes, and not much else. Aramaic was the primary language for Jews in that area. That is accepted by virtually every scholar on the subject.

As for Jesus knowing Greek, probably not.
If you say so...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
If you say so...

Just do a google books search for "Palestinian Judaism" or "Palestinian Jew." See for yourself how much scholarly material is written on that topic.

Then you can check out the antithesis - Alexandrian Judaism // Diaspora Judaism.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The word Jesus came to English from the Spanish Jesús, from the Latin Iesus, from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (pronounced ēsoûs).

OK, I'll help you out with this. "Jesus" in English has nothing to do with Spanish, being more influenced by the original German Bibles, but that doesn't matter either.

"Jesus" is a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (pronounced ēsoûs) but transliterated iesous = the i becomes a J and the o drops out. So the Greek pronounciation esous very slightly changes in English to Jesus.

Why don't English people pronounce it like the Greeks? We are English speakers and we pronounce it the way that feels better in our language.

Latin doesn't have a J by the way, which is why they retain the I.
 

Godwilling

Organic, kinetic learner
So Jesus was never Yeshua? (Spanish set aside :D)

[As per your OP that somehow got Izza from Yeshua]
If you are asking, "were they the same people?", the answer is possibly. If you are asking, "is Jesus the same word as Yeshua?", the answer is obviously not.

My point regarding the name is that the English version of the Jewish name Yeshua is Joshua, and that the name Jesus is simply an evolution of a series of degenerations of a supposely Jewish name that now has no link to Judaism.

If his name was Yeshua, and Yeshua is translated as Joshua in English, then it would make sense to call him Joshua and not Jesus.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
If you are asking, "were they the same people?", the answer is possibly. If you are asking, "is Jesus the same word as Yeshua?", the answer is obviously not.

My point regarding the name is that the English version of the Jewish name Yeshua is Joshua, and that the name Jesus is simply an evolution of a series of degenerations of a supposely Jewish name that now has no link to Judaism.

If his name was Yeshua, and Yeshua is translated as Joshua in English, then it would make sense to call him Joshua and not Jesus.

Then your point is irrelevant because Jesus in English comes from Greek and not Hebrew.
 
Top