Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2013, 08:34 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2013 09:03 PM by Buddy Christ.)
Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
I stumbled unto this christianity.about article:


"He is correct in saying Yeshua is the Hebrew name for the Lord. It means "Yahweh [the Lord] is Salvation." The English spelling of Yeshua is “Joshua.” However, when translated from Hebrew into the Greek language, the name Yeshua becomes Iēsous. The English spelling for Iēsous is “Jesus.”

Basically, what this means is Joshua and Jesus are the same name. One is translated from Hebrew into English, the other from Greek into English. It is also interesting to note, the names "Joshua" and "Isaiah" are essentially the same names as Yeshua in Hebrew. They mean "Savior" and "the salvation of the Lord." "


Is any of this accurate? If you can get 3 different names from 1 just from translating to Greek, it hardly seems like "translating." Seems more like "guessing." Greek wasn't spoken by a different species, we should be able to translate close enough to represent the same meanings. I never understood name translations anyways. Even in Freshman Spanish I when I was told my "Spanish name" was Humberto... I was like, "No, my Spanish name would still be Brian." If people called Jesus "Yeshua," how would that translate to a different sounding word? Names don't have meanings. They are sound effects. I don't know how you can claim that "3" and "17" are essentially the same numbers, unless you're just trying to satisfy a certain "prophecy."

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
25-03-2013, 06:46 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Because we're not talking about Greek only but Hebrew.
*"Yehoshua" - Hebrew Joshua = God saves.
*Y'shua (Iesous) Greek Jesus = God is Savior.
*Yeshayyahu - Hebrew Isaiah = God's salvation/God is generous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2013 03:36 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
As usual, LyingYetSexuallyPleasingButIncrediblyIgnorantJebusTrollJoke is wrong.

The Greek alphabet can only approximate certain sounds made in other languages. It is not possible to translate the Hebrew name Yehoshua from Hebrew to Greek, and Greek is lacking some of the sounds which Hebrew has. There is no Greek word that starts with a "ye" sound. So it had to be changed to something. Also Greek never has an "h" sound in the middle of a word, as it sounds funny to their ears, so they would omit that syllable. Greek also never says "sh", but says "s" instead, and with the "os" it makes it a masculine noun.

In Hebrew the name has several meanings. Just as it did not mean or have anything to do with a "savior" in Greek, it was a derived from the archaic Hebrew word which means "to rescue", or "to deliver". In the Second Temple period, they used commonly the word or name יֵשׁוּעַ . In general it was a contraction of the full name "Joshua". The name Joshua was usually used in the post-Exilic period (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) and was also seen frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The attempted "concordance" (in order to MAKE Matthew appear to use the play on the name "savior" is a well known piece of attempted linguistic fraud by fundies). (Of course it was never the function of a "messiah" to save anyone from their sins, and it represents a far more advanced Xtian theological development, than the early First Century, which proves that the gospel(s) was/were cooked up much later).

The name ישוע occurs in the Hebrew of the Old Testament many places, including Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, etc etc, Nehemiah 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, among other places, 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15, and also in Archaic Hebrew in Ezra 5:2. In Nehemiah 8:17 this name refers to Joshua, (the son of Nun). Only later when the "Reformation" Bible translators (ca. 1625), went back to the original languages that a distinction between Jesus and Jeshua, and the other forms appeared in English. The name probably has a "theophoric" or "theophonic" implied meaning/sound, as it resembles the sound of the name for their god, יהוח (the "Tetragrammaton") YHWH. The word שׁוּעַ (shua‘) is a noun which means a "cry for help", (or crying out for help), by someone who needs to be RESCUED from danger, or a calamatous situation, NOT "SAVED FROM THEIR SINS". In summary, the name meant "shout out to Yahweh when in need of help". It has NOTHING whatever to do with a messiah, a savior, or any salvation (from sin) bullshit. What you got was the usual fundie biased altered crap, which they have spent SO many years cooking up, to MAKE IT APPEAR their fundie interpretation of the Babble makes sense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:The Greek alphabet can only approximate certain sounds made in other languages. It is not possible to translate the Hebrew name Yehoshua from Hebrew to Greek, and Greek is lacking some of the sounds which Hebrew has. There is no Greek word that starts with a "ye" sound. So it had to be changed to something. Also
Greek never has an "h" sound in the middle of a word, as it sounds funny to their ears, so they would omit that sylable. Greek also never says "sh", but says "s" instead, and with the "os" it makes it a masculine noun.
1. As usual, you misrepresent what I write. "Yehoshua" was my transliteration of HEBREW, not GREEK. 2. Read Isaiah 9. The Messiah is also called Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Everlasting Father. And the scriptures, as you know, tell us there is no other Savior than God. Jesus, is God, Savior, Prince and King--all in the OT before you accuse the NT authors of redacting their claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 03:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(25-03-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The Greek alphabet can only approximate certain sounds made in other languages. It is not possible to translate the Hebrew name Yehoshua from Hebrew to Greek, and Greek is lacking some of the sounds which Hebrew has. There is no Greek word that starts with a "ye" sound. So it had to be changed to something. Also
Greek never has an "h" sound in the middle of a word, as it sounds funny to their ears, so they would omit that sylable. Greek also never says "sh", but says "s" instead, and with the "os" it makes it a masculine noun.
1. As usual, you misrepresent what I write. "Yehoshua" was my transliteration of HEBREW, not GREEK. 2. Read Isaiah 9. The Messiah is also called Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Everlasting Father. And the scriptures, as you know, tell us there is no other Savior than God. Jesus, is God, Savior, Prince and King--all in the OT before you accuse the NT authors of redacting their claims.

A divine being in Hebrew culture does not mean they were in any way equivalent to Yahweh. The "shade" that the Witch of Endor conjured was "divine". To say Jebus was god's son, meant in that culture, he was a "righteous man". There is no need for a savior, in a culture in which evil was seen as "chaos", (as proven by Buber in "Good and Evil), not as a "stain on a soul". You really are incredibly ignorant. Rudolf Bulmann, and Martin Buber and Paul Tillich agreed that Chrstianity changed the meaning of a messiah to suit their cultic aims. All the other names are later names, (except "Emmanu-el" ... GOD IS WITH US ... NOT "IS A GOD"), was a title which was applied to many, including the child in the mistaken "virgin birth" "prophesy", http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rgin+birth and (esp "Everlasting Father"). Jebus NEVER claimed he was divine. In fact the concept of "divinity" is very different, and how and when it was conferred, (or obtained), in each of the canonical gospels. The authors "redacted" EVERYTHING. They essentially made it all up to promote their cult. Again, your messiah FAILED to do THE ONE THING a messiah was supposed to do. Fail again.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(25-03-2013 03:31 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  You would think his brother would have objected to him claiming divinity. Of course, "whatever" the Original Message was, it was lost. I can accept it was probably eschatonic.

--J.D.

You would also think if his brother was THE ONLY human to ever "rise" from the dead, James would happened to have mentioned it in his letter. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(25-03-2013 03:49 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  Weeelllllll . . . now to be fair . . . he did not actually write that letter!

Is that revelation going to conjure a Stool Tsunami [As seen on National Geographic!--Ed.] from PleaseJunior?

--J.D.

Exactly. It's one of the reasons we know it couldn't have been him. If he were THAT James, he would have said something.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 04:45 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 05:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Since coming here, I have changed my mind a lot about the historical dude.
Mark Fulton has some very interesting stuff to say about this. For me, in the end, I think it wouldn't make sense to start a cult, and then fight about everything, (like they do in Acts). I suspect somewhere in there is an historical kernal. My theory revolves around the temple, and the Jerusalem economy. It's almost impossible to remember how important the temple was to the economy of that city. The ENTIRE economy was built on the festivals, and sacrificial buying and preparing and fee structures for ritual bathing, and staying over-night for visitors, and eating and money handed to the priests to do their thing, raising, feeding, breeding hundreds of thousands of sheep and goats, and slaughtering animals, and burning their carcasses, and changing the Roman currency into Hebrew for ritual purposes. Then along comes Jebus, and he pulls his stunt in the temple. He was a trouble-maker, and they just got rid of him. No trial. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers.

Saul of Tarsus did change eveything, however. SPJJT really practices Paulianity. He just doesn't know it.

Mark has a different view, that he may have actually been a revolutionary. And that most of what was cooked up was a Roman conspiracy. (See his tape by Joseph Atwill). That makes a lot of sense to me. In the end, it doesn't matter.

Christianity in no way "flows" culturally from Hebrew culture. After examining the origins of the OT, no one can make "ultimate claims" about it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-03-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:Not according to Isaiah 9, son. Rather human figure. Also, does not fit the description of Junior.
Son? How old are you, Dad? My daughter is awaiting her response to her Yale application now. Could you possibly be more smarmy and supercilious? You're rather rude, aren't you? Don't you worry about furthering the stereotype of Atheists as arrogant, mean people? Isaiah 9 says MIGHTY GOD. Your Hebrew knowledge is poor. Use a concordance, please.
Quote:Not according to the NT texts. He is merely "a son of a god"--though Mk considers him a son of a particular god--and I do not question the implicit monotheism of Mk but then you have to deal with "daemons" which were . . . well . . . "small gods." He is certainly important to Mk, but unlike Jack Gurney, the 13th Earl of Gurney, when he prays he does not find he is talking to himself. Recall, Big Daddy rather talks to him. Go forward to Jn and you have a denial that he is Big Daddy which is especially remarkable given that Jn's Junior is the most godlike Junior of The Big Four. And before you try to spout Trinitarianism, that be a late apology to deal with the then problem of a separate Big Daddy and Junior--not to mention the Spook!
This last reads as incomprehensible drivel but a rank novice in Christianity can see that unable to accuse Christ justly, the Pharisees condemned Him for blasphemy; equating Himself with God.
Quote:None of it in the HB, son. Sorry.
What is an HB, please? Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:36 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:Since coming here, I have changed my mind a lot about the historical dude.
Mark Fulton has some very interesting stuff to say about this. For me, in the end, I think it wouldn't make sense to start a cult, and then fight about everything, (like they do in Acts). I suspect somewhere in there is an historical kernal. My theory revolves around the temple, and the Jerusalem economy. It's almost impossible to remember how important the temple was to the economy of that city. The ENTIRE economy was built on the festivals, and sacrificial buying and preparing and fee structures for ritual bathing, and staying over-night for visitors, and eating and money handed to the priests to do their thing, raising, feeding, breeding hundreds of thousands of sheep and goats, and slaughtering animals, and burning their carcasses, and changing the Roman currency into Hebrew for ritual purposes. Then along comes Jebus, and he pulls his stunt in the temple. He was a trouble-maker, and they just got rid of him. No trial. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers.

Saul of Tarsus did change eveything, however. SPJJT really practices Paulianity. He just doesn't know it.

Mark has a different view, that he may have actually been a revolutionary. And that most of what was cooked up was a Roman conspiracy. (See his tape by Joseph Atwill). That makes a lot of sense to me. In the end, it doesn't matter.

Christianity in no way "flows" culturally from Hebrew culture. After examining the origins of the OT, no one can make "ultimate claims" about it.
BB, I agree with the first part of your post. Even a tithe of a tithe was lots of gelt by the time hundreds of thousands of pilgrims were in town for a festival. However, it still seems like special pleading to me: Paul created a new cult using lies and half-truths to cover for a political/economic rebel for whom author authors pled He fulfilled prophecy from books written after events happened to claim foresight to cover books from four sources that were compiled to create a backstory for a culture that unlike its surrounding cultures, lacked a chief or particular deity. Also, brothers of the rebel then aligned their writings to Paul the liar... it just starts to sound like a 1,000-year conspiracy. It sounds as kooky as some of the religions and cultures out there! Please explain your rationale as to why and how over one dozen NT authors (not even including apocrypha and pseudopigrapha authors) were all in this conspiracy, and your rationale for the OT switcheroos also. I am sincerely and genuinely interested to learn more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: