Jesus

[TalAbrams]

Ἰησοῦς Iēsous (ee-ay-sooce)
The LXX (Septuagint) uses the same Greek word for Joshua.
Issa is Arabic for Jesus, I think.
Jesu is a derivative used in the Latin Vulgate by Jerome.
Yeshua is probably better choice since it is an acceptable form of Y'hoshua in Hebrew
Jesus is a non-starter and is about as far from the original name as you can get.

 

[Godwilling]

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 US is not an exclusively English speaking country. While English is the first language of the majority, there are over 50 million Spanish speaking citizens in the US. American English differs from UK English precisely because of the influence of Spanish, hence color rather than colour, and labor rather than labour.

In fact, the US has the second highest population of Spanish speakers in the world. Mexico has the largest and Spain has the third largest. In Texas, NM, California, and other southern states of the US, spanish was spoken before English and the second language of the Apaches was Spanish, hence Geronimo.

Secondly, England is not a country. The United Kingdom is a country, and it includes Scotland, Wales, and Norther Irland/Ulters (depending on your brand of Christianity there).

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.

Do you mean that Spanish speaking people and Portuguese speaking people that name their children Jesus do not respect Jesus?

There is only one Jesus, and that is Jesus Christ.

You appear to have no difficulty make assertions that fit your argument, no matter how baseless.

What do you mean there is only one Jesus? There are millions all over the Americas, Spain, the Phillipines, and Africa.

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.

No, you have mentioned the US, and it has many people with the name Jesus, and you have mentioned England which is not a country, but part of the United Kingdom.

That is why people don't name their kids

kids are the offsprings of goats. Do you mean children?

Jesus in English countries. It is out of respect. It has nothing to do with branding, or the other claims you made.

You asserted, and you are probably correct that Jesus real name was Yeshua, which in English is Joshua. Do you mean that English speaking people that name their children Joshua do not respect their Lord?

Also, whether or not English speaking people name their kids

Do you mean children?

Jesus really means nothing.

Another subjective statement. Do you mean it means nothing to you because it contradicts your beliefs, or do you mean that no one is allowed to give it any meaning?

If we go back to the time in which Jesus lived, his name wasn't that unique. Thus, your argument is moot.

Actually, you have proved my point.

 

[Godwilling]

Ἰησοῦς Iēsous (ee-ay-sooce)
The LXX (Septuagint) uses the same Greek word for Joshua.
Issa is Arabic for Jesus, I think.
Jesu is a derivative used in the Latin Vulgate by Jerome.
Yeshua is probably better choice since it is an acceptable form of Y'hoshua in Hebrew
Jesus is a non-starter and is about as far from the original name as you can get.

You are correct in most of your statements. Just one clarification. Issa is an Aramaic, not Arab name, as are the names Abraham, Noah, Ashur, and Georges (in English George)

Contemporary Assyrians and Chaldeans still use the name Issa. I am not sure if it is the equivalent of Joshua/Yeshua or another name, but I have met Assyrians with the name Issa.

The Assyrians and Chaldeans are now Nestorian Christians and they claim that one of the apostles directly converted them shortly after the alleged death of Jesus.

 

[Godwilling]

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.

Your actions have demonstrated that you have the ability to learn from new information. Unfortunately, that human quality is not practiced as often as it could be.

Would you not agree that most people would be too afraid to act on new information and simply hold on tight to their beliefs as if for "dear life"?

 

[Godwilling]

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

Do you know what the Palestinians call themselves?
Do you know why Palestine is called Palestine?
Do you know that all archaeological finds in Palestine point to the fact that there was no large migration of any people in Palestine except for the well documented historical invasions?
Do you know that the first chapters of Genesis where written in Aramaic the language of the Assyrians and Chaldeans?
Do you know that the Bible describes Abraham, Lot, Sarah, and the rest of Abraham's clan and ancestors as Chaldeans because it places their place of birth in Ur?
Do you know where Ur was and is?
Do you know that there are no archaeological finds to support the claim that any one ever lived in the Sinai Dessert for any length of time?
Do you have any historical facts to the contrary?

I find this to be wrong

Wrong as "bad" for you?
Wrong as inaccurate because you have facts that contradict my statement?
Wrong because it contradicts your beliefs?
Could you place Assyria (not Syria) in a map?
Could you place Chaldea in a map?
Could you place Ur in a map?

 

[TalAbrams]

Eashoa is the Aramaic for Jesus.
Isa' is the Arabic

 

[fallingblood]

The US is not an exclusively English speaking country.

I did not state such. However, it is not incorrect to state that the U.S. is an English speaking country. English is the de facto national language and is spoken by the vast majority of people here. The majority even claim it as the mother tongue. So yes, the U.S. is an English speaking country (there are very few, if any countries that only one language is used exclusively, so I don't see why you are making such a point).

Secondly, England is not a country. The United Kingdom is a country, and it includes Scotland, Wales, and Norther Irland/Ulters (depending on your brand of Christianity there).

England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a country by it's own right; however, is composed of four other countries. For ease: England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you mean that Spanish speaking people and Portuguese speaking people that name their children Jesus do not respect Jesus?

You need to take what I said in context, because I do mention this. No, I don't think Spanish or Portuguese speaking people do not respect Jesus because they name their kids such. A lot of that has to do with their culture. And I wasn't speaking about them. I was speaking about English speaking countries (the United States, and England), and their particular culture which influences why they don't name their kids Jesus. As it is out of respect (again, for this specific group of people).

You appear to have no difficulty make assertions that fit your argument, no matter how baseless.

What do you mean there is only one Jesus? There are millions all over the Americas, Spain, the Phillipines, and Africa.

You seem to be unable to read what I say in context. If you read what I was saying in context, you would see that the sentence you quoted was part of a larger statement. This statement being about English speaking countries, specifically the United States and England. For these people there is only one Jesus. That is Jesus Christ. And this has to do with what their culture defines as respectful.

I shouldn't have to break it down so much.

No, you have mentioned the US, and it has many people with the name Jesus, and you have mentioned England which is not a country, but part of the United Kingdom.

England is a country. I linked to a wiki article above that shows that it is a country. The United Kingdom is a country compromised of four other countries. So yes, it is a country.

As for the U.S., those people who are named Jesus here are not from English speaking countries. They are immigrants, who come from other non-English speaking countries (that is not to say that people in those countries do not speak English; however, that those people come from countries where the primary language is something besides English).

Thus, your point is moot.

kids are the offsprings of goats. Do you mean children?

Seriously? Kids: informal a child or young person. Kids was used properly. It can refer to children, and I used it to mean exactly what I wanted. There is no reason for you to assume that it has anything to do with goats.

You asserted, and you are probably correct that Jesus real name was Yeshua, which in English is Joshua. Do you mean that English speaking people that name their children Joshua do not respect their Lord?

This is simply a ridiculous statement. Jesus is the English, accepted term, for Yeshua. Joshua is not. Thus, your statement has no real meaning.

Do you mean children?

Nope, I mean kids. Kids is the correct term I was looking for. Context should have clearly shown that I was talking about humans, the offspring of parents.

Another subjective statement. Do you mean it means nothing to you because it contradicts your beliefs, or do you mean that no one is allowed to give it any meaning?

Again, context is key. And in this case, you didn't even take the whole sentence. You cut the sentence apart to make it say something that it did not. That simply is a ridiculous tactic on your part, and really isn't ethical.

This is what I said: Also, whether or not English speaking people name their kids Jesus really means nothing. I did not say what you are implying what I said. By taking me out of context, you were being dishonest. And I still stand by what I say.

Actually, you have proved my point.

What point? That you don't have a leg to stand on? The term Jesus did not come from the Hebrew. Yes, Yeshua was Hebrew (or Aramaic), and was translated into the Greek, where Jesus fits just fine, as A_E has explained to you.

All you've proven is that you can take a statement out of context, as well as make a big issue over nothing.

 

[fallingblood]

Do you know what the Palestinians call themselves?

I addressed most of this before. Your information is incorrect, and the majority of scholars would agree. I don't see why you are bringing up issues though that have already been put to rest. I have already explained why you are wrong. You have never shown that your idea is correct.


This is what I stated before:Originally Posted by Godwilling
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.


In addition, Issa is not Aramaic. It is Arabic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In addition, Issa is not Aramaic. It is Arabic.

It's not Spanish, either.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are correct in most of your statements. Just one clarification. Issa is an Aramaic, not Arab name, as are the names Abraham, Noah, Ashur, and Georges (in English George)

Contemporary Assyrians and Chaldeans still use the name Issa. I am not sure if it is the equivalent of Joshua/Yeshua or another name, but I have met Assyrians with the name Issa.

The Assyrians and Chaldeans are now Nestorian Christians and they claim that one of the apostles directly converted them shortly after the alleged death of Jesus.

Enjoy making stuff up much?

 

[Godwilling]

I did not state such. However, it is not incorrect to state that the U.S. is an English speaking country. English is the de facto national language and is spoken by the vast majority of people here. The majority even claim it as the mother tongue. So yes, the U.S. is an English speaking country (there are very few, if any countries that only one language is used exclusively, so I don't see why you are making such a point).

England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a country by it's own right; however, is composed of four other countries. For ease: England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US is also a Spanish speaking country and most of the Southern US, as well as Chicago, New York, New Jersey and many other cities have large populations of Spanish speaking US citizens. There are many Spanish speaking radio and television stations in the US, and most of the southern states of the US have a myriad of Spanish names. Unless of course you believe that San Diego, San Juan, San Francisco, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Reno, and others are Aramaic names that came to English through Greek.

Wikipedia is not much more than a forum, and citing it as proof of any thing simply demonstrates the level of research knowledge and skills of the person making the citation.

You need to take what I said in context, because I do mention this. No, I don't think Spanish or Portuguese speaking people do not respect Jesus because they name their kids such. A lot of that has to do with their culture. And I wasn't speaking about them. I was speaking about English speaking countries (the United States, and England), and their particular culture which influences why they don't name their kids Jesus. As it is out of respect (again, for this specific group of people).

You appear to continue to deny the existence of many US and some UK citizens that have the name Jesus.

You seem to be unable to read what I say in context. If you read what I was saying in context, you would see that the sentence you quoted was part of a larger statement. This statement being about English speaking countries, specifically the United States and England. For these people there is only one Jesus. That is Jesus Christ. And this has to do with what their culture defines as respectful.

It appears that rather than say, “I do not like it when people disagree with me, you are saying, “you seem to be unable…”.

Who are “these people” to whom you refer for whom there is one Jesus? Is this another intentional ethnocentric, racist statement? The US is composed of most races and types of people in the World, not just English and not just followers of Jesus. In the US and in the UK, there are African Americans; there are people of Irish descent, Scottish, Native, Spanish from Spain, Portuguese, and other Europeans, South Americans, Asians, and every other ethnicity. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and the largest minority-atheists.

I shouldn't have to break it down so much.

Perhaps you are used to bullying people into appearing to agree with you.

England is a country. I linked to a wiki article above that shows that it is a country. The United Kingdom is a country compromised of four other countries. So yes, it is a country.

There is no English passport, English citizenship, any other form of English identification, and there are no countries inside other countries. There are United Kingdom passports, there is United Kingdom citizenship, United Kingdom membership to the United Nations, United Kingdom membership to NATO, and other memberships reserved for sovereign countries. Citing Wikipedia is like citing this forum.

As for the U.S., those people who are named Jesus here are not from English speaking countries. They are immigrants, who come from other non-English speaking countries (that is not to say that people in those countries do not speak English; however, that those people come from countries where the primary language is something besides English).

Is this another intentional, ethnocentric, racist comment?
All Americans who are not Native Americans are emigrants or emigrant descent. I know Spanish speaking Americans who can trace their roots to Geronimo’s band, and most of the Southern US spoke Spanish before English. There are many US citizens born in the US whose first language is Spanish. Have you ever been in Miami, Puerto Rico, Los Angeles, and other places where Spanish is spoken in large percentages?

Thus, your point is moot.

Seriously? Kids: informal a child or young person. Kids was used properly. It can refer to children, and I used it to mean exactly what I wanted. There is no reason for you to assume that it has anything to do with goats.
This is simply a ridiculous statement. Jesus is the English, accepted term, for Yeshua. Joshua is not. Thus, your statement has no real meaning.
Nope, I mean kids. Kids is the correct term I was looking for. Context should have clearly shown that I was talking about humans, the offspring of parents.
Again, context is key. And in this case, you didn't even take the whole sentence. You cut the sentence apart to make it say something that it did not. That simply is a ridiculous tactic on your part, and really isn't ethical.

Just because some people do not have good command of the English language does not mean that goat offspring is a respectful way to refer to children.

Yes, context is very important. That is one of the ways in which I can assess the knowledge, cognitive abilities, and other skills of the person with whom I am communicating-I put it in context.

This is what I said: Also, whether or not English speaking people name their kids Jesus really means nothing. I did not say what you are implying what I said. By taking me out of context, you were being dishonest. And I still stand by what I say.

What point? That you don't have a leg to stand on? The term Jesus did not come from the Hebrew. Yes, Yeshua was Hebrew (or Aramaic), and was translated into the Greek, where Jesus fits just fine, as A_E has explained to you.

All you've proven is that you can take a statement out of context, as well as make a big issue over nothing.

When you contradict yourself saying, “The term Jesus did not come from the Hebrew. Yes, Yeshua was Hebrew (or Aramaic)” did you mean to say that it did not come from Hebrew, but from Hebrew?
When you say, “Hebrew (or Aramaic)” do you mean you do not know which or that you equate the two?

Since Hebrew and Aramaic are two different and distinct languages, I am wondering if you refer to the two as synonymous because of the custom of calling the OT, the Hebrew Aramaic Scriptures.

You might be interested in knowing that parts of the Torah are written in Aramaic and some in Hebrew and that there is no such thing as a Hebrew Aramaic language. That common mistake is made by people with enough knowledge to generate ideas and utter statements and not enough knowledge to assess the validity of their ideas and statements.

I am getting the impression that you might know less Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and perhaps any other language except some English than you are pretending to know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am getting the impression that you might know less Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and perhaps any other language except some English than you are pretending to know.

How could you possibly measure someone else's competence in these languages when you're making the most elementary errors - the alphabet (!!!), basic etemology, morphology and syntax?

You don't even know which language your words are from (!!!).

The reason why people refer you to wiki is you lack the most basic knowledge of your subject (s).

 

[Godwilling]

Enjoy making stuff up much?

I have never misquoted anyone. Have you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have never misquoted anyone. Have you?

Make no mistake, I did not say that you misquoted anyone.

I said that you're making stuff up.

You may or may not be able to appreciate the difference.

 

[Godwilling]

How could you possibly measure someone else's competence in these languages when you're making the most elementary errors - the alphabet (!!!), basic etemology, morphology and syntax?

You don't even know which language your words are from (!!!).

The reason why people refer you to wiki is you lack the most basic knowledge of your subject (s).

Were you trying to write etymology, or entomology and do you know the meaning of either?
Perhaps is a transliteration of one of your "Hebrew/Aramaic" sources through Greek.

Offer me other languages in which you would like to continue the debate if you wish.

I am not sure what you were attempting to communicate when you wrote "the alphabet (!!!)" but whatever it is, it is not English, at least not English accepted as correct in any English speaking country.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Were you trying to write etymology, or entomology

Put your keen intellect to task and figure it out.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Offer me other languages in which you would like to continue the debate if you wish.

Greek.

 

[Godwilling]

Make no mistake, I did not say that you misquoted anyone.

I said that you're making stuff up.

You may or may not be able to appreciate the difference.

Is that why you quoted William Harris as the source of your knowledge that Jesus was illiterate?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is that why you quoted William Harris as the source of your knowledge that Jesus was illiterate?

That's not Greek.

Besides, you didn't read the source anyway.

 

[Godwilling]

Put your keen intellect to task and figure it out.

Sounds like you are asking me to use my own knowledge to help you prove that you are very knowledgeable.

Perpahs you feel the need to impress others, to convince them, or to muscle them into agreeing with you. I have no issue with that, but maybe you should learn to spell a word before you try to impress anyone with that word.