Jesus

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

Did you make up the Spanish connection or did you read it somewhere?

 

[Godwilling]

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.

I am familiar with the term. It is not for lack of knowledge of the term that I oppose it. Palestine means Philistine and Palestinians means Philistines and the Jews and the Philistines were often bitter enemies.

That said, it appears that the Jews were Philistines who adopted a religion packaged for them by the Babylonians during their first invasion of Palestine. They made some Philistines believe that their ancestors where Babylonians from Chaldea so they would not oppose the Babylonians too hard.

By the time of Yeshua/Jesus, the lines were drawn between the Jews and the Philistines and that is why calling Jesus a Palestinian Jew, or Philistine Jew is a contradiction. It would be more appropriate perhaps to call him an Israelite, or Israelite Jew.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am familiar with the term. It is not for lack of knowledge of the term that I oppose it. Palestine means Philistine and Palestinians means Philistines and the Jews and the Philistines were often bitter enemies.

That said, it appears that the Jews were Philistines who adopted a religion packaged for them by the Babylonians during their first invasion of Palestine. They made some Philistines believe that their ancestors where Babylonians from Chaldea so they would not oppose the Babylonians too hard.

By the time of Yeshua/Jesus, the lines were drawn between the Jews and the Philistines and that is why calling Jesus a Palestinian Jew, or Philistine Jew is a contradiction. It would be more appropriate perhaps to call him an Israelite, or Israelite Jew.

How appropriate is it to call him something that no one else does? If we're changing the definition after hundreds of years, there has to be some advantage to the change. "Palestine" refers to a geographic area that is not "Israel" in the ancient or modern sense. It does not refer to Philistines.

Arguments from etemology are almost always completely wrong, and in your case, your etemology is fabricated making your position even weaker.

 

[Godwilling]

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

Most of the Greeks I know tell me that everything comes from Greece

Yeshua is a Hebrew name, and translated to English it is Joshua. How are Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, French, or Arabic versions relevant?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Most of the Greeks I know tell me that everything comes from Greece

Yeshua is a Hebrew name, and translated to English it is Joshua. How are Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, French, or Arabic versions relevant?

Well, read your OP.

Yeshua is a Hebrew name that appears nowhere in the Greek New Testament.

Yet you wrongly say that "Jesus" comes through Latin and Spanish from Yeshua, refering originally to the Greek.

If that isn't a convoluted and confused argument, I'm Mickey Mouse.

 

[Godwilling]

Well, read your OP.

Yeshua is a Hebrew name that appears nowhere in the Greek New Testament.

Yet you wrongly say that "Jesus" comes through Latin and Spanish from Yeshua, refering originally to the Greek.

If that isn't a convoluted and confused argument, I'm Mickey Mouse.

Not as convoluted as asserting that a "Palestinian Jew" had the name "Jesus"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not as convoluted as asserting that a Palestinian Jew had the name "Jesus"

The difference is one is nonsense and the other has been accepted practice for over 2000 years.

 

[Godwilling]

There are horrible things accepted for a lot longer and that does not make them right.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are horrible things accepted for a lot longer and that does it make them right.

But this isn't a horrible thing.

It's like getting upset that people call a big hole in the ground the "Grand Canyon." Only that hasn't been called the "Grand Canyon" for 2500 years.

 

[Godwilling]

But this isn't a horrible thing.

It's like getting upset that people call a big hole in the ground the "Grand Canyon." Only that hasn't been called the "Grand Canyon" for 2500 years.

Upset is not an emotion that I experience when I discuss any issue. I am always glad to encounter someone with a different opinion. It is the only way to learn any thing new.
My statement refers to the fact that even horrible things have endure the test of time, let alone things that most people know or care little about.

 

[fallingblood]

If you say so...

Nice way to actually avoid the discussion.

 

[fallingblood]

I am familiar with the term. It is not for lack of knowledge of the term that I oppose it. Palestine means Philistine and Palestinians means Philistines and the Jews and the Philistines were often bitter enemies.

That said, it appears that the Jews were Philistines who adopted a religion packaged for them by the Babylonians during their first invasion of Palestine. They made some Philistines believe that their ancestors where Babylonians from Chaldea so they would not oppose the Babylonians too hard.

By the time of Yeshua/Jesus, the lines were drawn between the Jews and the Philistines and that is why calling Jesus a Palestinian Jew, or Philistine Jew is a contradiction. It would be more appropriate perhaps to call him an Israelite, or Israelite Jew.

Palestinian Jew is a very appropriate term. It doesn't refer to the Philistines. If you look at the history of the area, you will see that it has been called Palestine since the 5th century when Herodotus used it to label the area. We see the term being used after that to describe the area in question. It is called Palestine throughout history. And today, it is universally recognized as the designation of that area. It is simply accepted that the area in question is called Palestine.

It has nothing to do with the Philistines. At most, one could make the argument that it was the Land of the Philistines, but it still designated roughly the same area.

There is a reason why virtually all scholars reference the area as Palestine. Because that is what the area was known as. Jesus lived in Palestine. He was a Palestinian Jew. It is the accepted term, and there is no reason to try to change it.

 

[fallingblood]

Most of the Greeks I know tell me that everything comes from Greece

Yeshua is a Hebrew name, and translated to English it is Joshua. How are Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, French, or Arabic versions relevant?

You're missing something though. The name Yeshua wasn't translated into English first. It was translated into Greek. That is the language of the New Testament. So the Greek is important here.

I mentioned the Arabic as you were using an Arabic name for Jesus; Issa. You're the only one bringing up Spanish, so you may ask yourself as to why.

Using the term Jesus to describe this ancient figure really shouldn't matter though. It is a name that refers to a very specific person. We could change it, but it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't change anything. It would still be the same person, and really, most people would probably remain calling him Jesus. That is what his name has become.

 

[Godwilling]

You're missing something though. The name Yeshua wasn't translated into English first. It was translated into Greek. That is the language of the New Testament. So the Greek is important here.

I mentioned the Arabic as you were using an Arabic name for Jesus; Issa. You're the only one bringing up Spanish, so you may ask yourself as to why.

Using the term Jesus to describe this ancient figure really shouldn't matter though. It is a name that refers to a very specific person. We could change it, but it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't change anything. It would still be the same person, and really, most people would probably remain calling him Jesus. That is what his name has become.

Yeshua=Joshua in English. If his name was Yeshua in Hebrew, then his English name is Joshua. The advantage of calling him Jesus is simply branding. A unique name is always more profitable than a common one.

Jesus in English is unique while there are many Joshuas. It is interesting that the name is not used as a commun name in English, but it is not unusual in Spanish.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeshua=Joshua in English. If his name was Yeshua in Hebrew, then his English name is Joshua. The advantage of calling him Jesus is simply branding. A unique name is always more profitable than a common one.

Jesus in English is unique while there are many Joshuas. It is interesting that the name is not used as a commun name in English, but it is not unusual in Spanish.

Joshua is, and it means exactly the same thing.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeshua=Joshua in English. If his name was Yeshua in Hebrew, then his English name is Joshua. The advantage of calling him Jesus is simply branding. A unique name is always more profitable than a common one.

Jesus in English is unique while there are many Joshuas. It is interesting that the name is not used as a commun name in English, but it is not unusual in Spanish.

Why doesn't it matter? His name is Jesus. That is what people recognize him as. It doesn't really change anything. And it has already been explained why people call him Jesus.

As for Jesus in English being unique, why does that matter anyway? You are picking an insignificant point, and arguing that it really means something huge. But it doesn't.

And this has nothing to do with branding. You can't simply look at current trends and then assume that has always been. Most English people don't use the name Jesus because it is the name of their Lord. It is out of respect. Really, you have no point.

 

[Godwilling]

Most English people don't use the name Jesus because it is the name of their Lord. It is out of respect. Really, you have no point.

“Most English people…”? Do you know any English people that use the name Jesus as a first name?

What do you mean English people do not use the name Jesus as a first name because Jesus is their Lord?

Is this an intentional ethnocentric racist remark?

Are you claiming now that Jesus is English? Or, that he is the Lord of the English exclusively?

How does it apply to people of mixed English and other races?

Do the English have a choice in the matter? Do you mean the English race or English citizens? Does it apply to Scots, and Welch, or are they excluded?

Is Jesus your Lord?

 

[fallingblood]

“Most English people…”? Do you know any English people that use the name Jesus as a first name?

What do you mean English people do not use the name Jesus as a first name because Jesus is their Lord?

Is this an intentional ethnocentric racist remark?

Are you claiming now that Jesus is English? Or, that he is the Lord of the English exclusively?

How does it apply to people of mixed English and other races?

Do the English have a choice in the matter? Do you mean the English race or English citizens? Does it apply to Scots, and Welch, or are they excluded?

Is Jesus your Lord?

Jesus is not my lord. Now that that is covered, lets try this again.

English speaking countries (I'm specifically speaking about the United States, and England), the name Jesus is seen a certain way. When someone says Jesus, they are meaning the historical Jesus, the Jesus of the NT, Jesus "Christ."

For many people, Jesus is the Lord, their Lord. Thus, out of respect, they don't name their kids Jesus. There is only one Jesus, and that is Jesus Christ. At least that is for people in English speaking countries, and that is based on our culture. Other cultures are different. But again, I'm only talking about English speaking countries, which I have qualified.

That is why people don't name their kids Jesus in English countries. It is out of respect. It has nothing to do with branding, or the other claims you made.

Also, whether or not English speaking people name their kids Jesus really means nothing. If we go back to the time in which Jesus lived, his name wasn't that unique. Thus, your argument is moot.

 

[Twig pentagram]

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?

I grew up thinking his name was Jesus because thats what my elders taught me. As I got older and studied things on my own I learned about the name Yeshua and I've refered to him as Yeshua every since.

 

[outhouse]

That said, it appears that the Jews were Philistines who adopted a religion packaged for them by the Babylonians during their first invasion of Palestine. They made some Philistines believe that their ancestors where Babylonians from Chaldea so they would not oppose the Babylonians too hard.

what kind of history did you learn and where did you get this info???

I find this to be wrong