Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 05:46 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(03-04-2013 01:04 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Prove any of it. You can't prove one word of it. There is no evidence for any of it.
Nicodemus never claimed to have been at the trial.
Your' self-destruction" is just the usual fundie judgemental crap about anyone who could never believe this nonsense. But then you contradict all the time your Jebus who told you
"Judge not lest ye be judged", and "No one shall come to me UNLESS the Father draw him", so I guess you pick and choose whatever makes you feel superior, Church Lady.
These people would NEVER have been in the quarters of the Roman aristocrats. You cannot name any other peasant who ever had a trial, and there were no "front row seats". They NEVER claimed to have been there. And BTW you forgot to address the contradictions. Thanks for all your BS. This is a great learning opportunity you provide for any guest on how deluded you fundies are. You do the work of your devil better than any devil could.
The trial in John (19:41) "It was the Day of Prepration; and it was about noon", (when Pilate pronounces sentence).
(Of course that never happened. Jebus was a nobody, and there was a standing oder to execute trouble makers with no trial. Thousands of people were exected without trials. )
Oops. In Mark, Jebus lives all through that day, they have the Passover meal that night, and he is arrested that night, and dies the next morning around 9:00. Different time, different day. Dr Bart Ehrman agrees they are contradictory. So now YOU know more than he does ? Why does Jebus give a long speech in John, and Mark says he was silent ? They can't both be true. Of course John changed it, so Jebus could be the "lamb who dies", which is one of his personal themes. Of course you will deny this, which is obvious, as your psychological make-up NEEDS to delude yourself at any cost. I don't need to create contradictions. Anyone honest can see them.
Yes, I'm aware that Pilate executed many people without trials. Again, you're doing several things along with others on this thread:

1. Ducking the Bible record by not using the hypothesis method and looking at the actual text - bridges were built between the reigning Herod and Pilate--both sought for audiences with Jesus. Further, there was a MAJOR festival and thousands of diaspora Jews in Jerusalem in attendance that week. Pilate couldn't just open up the crucifixion doors without a major riot on his hands and had to be diplomatic... no, the Bible record aligns with the historical record--how Pilate was prone to be cruel but also give in to the Jews on occasion. Compare the tradition re: Pilate didn't behead the Jews for whom he said "no Torah Law" and then His flip-flop on Jesus makes sense.

2. I'd be truly HONORED to address your "new" contradictions, except for that you will clearly again press your "Prove any of it. You can't prove one word of it. There is no evidence for any of it." Since I have the Bible documents and you have personal, slanted assertions (most of the scholars you quote will say some, not none, of the events happened) you are asking me to respond without using the scriptures to prove the scriptures, which is a) insane b) YOU ARE ASSERTING A NEGATIVE WHICH CANNOT BE PROVED.

PJ...it is you who have the slanted assertions, because you have accepted the gospels on face value. We have taken the trouble to try to understand the real history of the times. We know the gospels are not historical...you assume they are. Now...if you show some evidence of understanding the cultural milieu in which Jeebus (may have) lived, and the one in which the gospels were written, your opinions will be taken seriously.

Allow me to give you an example. This is what I've written about the trial...
"The Trial
Matthew claims Jesus was arrested because he claimed he was divine, but Yeshua didn’t fantasize he was God. Jews believed in only one god, Yahweh, and he wouldn’t have had any helpers if he’d made such a blasphemous claim. Nor could the Romans have cared less about a peasant’s delusions of grandeur. They were wise enough to never get involved in Jewish religious disputes unless they turned into a security issue. The high priest, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, Pilate and his army all knew Yeshua had hoped to start a rebellion against Rome.
He was taken before Pilate and the accusation made:
“We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King.” (Luke 23:2 NKJ). Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the Jews and Jesus answered,
“It is as you say it” (Luke 23:3 NKJ). This perfectly described the crux of the issue: Jesus was accused of undermining the government and the taxation system. He effectively signed his own death warrant by admitting he thought he was king of the Jews. Genuine Jewish kings didn’t pay Roman tax, so this contradicted Jesus’ earlier injunction to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar (see Matthew 22:21). (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...rial.html)

Luke was the only author who had Jesus appear before Herod, and he related that Jesus refused to talk to him. Yeshua would have hated Herod, the man who had his cousin killed. Herod allegedly found him not guilty, which is impossible to believe, as the same author had earlier claimed Herod wanted him killed. (Luke 13:31).

Then a Jewish crowd allegedly turned en masse against Jesus. Mark claimed,
“the chief priests however had incited the crowd” (Mark 15:11, NJB). This poorly explained excuse was the only reason given in any of the Gospels for “the crowd” turning against him. They shouted they wanted him crucified, and that they’d rather have Barabbas, a common criminal, freed in preference. No such custom of releasing the crowd’s favorite was ever recorded in any non-biblical document. There was probably no public trial. A trial with a Jewish crowd in attendance at that time of year would be just asking for trouble.

It’s implied this crowd was made up from the people of Jerusalem, who had been earlier described as the “multitudes” that had welcomed their king as a hero in an ancient ticker tape parade as he rode into the city. They’d allegedly thought he was a prophet and laid clothes and branches at his feet. The chief priests feared they’d create “an uproar” if Jesus was arrested. Can anyone imagine this crowd had a complete change of mind about their hero?

Romans were made to look as if they were innocent bystanders during the trial. Pilate read a letter from his wife about a dream she had that Jesus was innocent. Pilate supposedly said,
“I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4 KJV). He tried to talk the angry Jews out of having Jesus crucified, but gave in to the public clamor, because
“in fact a riot was imminent” (Matt. 27:24). So the crowd that was going to riot if Jesus was arrested (see Matt. 26:3–6) was now about to riot if he wasn’t crucified!
Pilate washed his hands of any responsibility for the decision to kill Jesus. This didn’t happen; it was theatrical propaganda, not real history. To pronounce a man innocent, then command your troops to kill him anyway, is preposterous.

Pilate’s job was to keep the peace and make sure Jews paid tax. From Pilate’s perspective Yeshua was nothing more than a vagrant and a dangerous subversive, so he would have regarded him with contempt and couldn’t have found him innocent.

The man described by secular historians was notorious for his cruelty toward the Jews. Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, writing in 41 CE, stated that Pilate’s tenure was associated with
“briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301–302). Josephus too reported several instances of Pilate flagrantly inciting an insurrection, which he then ruthlessly purged with his soldiers. In 36 CE, Vitellius, the Roman Syrian governor, removed Pilate from his office after a particularly violent attack on the Samaritans (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.85). He was ordered to Rome to face complaints of excessive cruelty against the Jews, found culpable, and exiled to Vienne, France. His true colors come across in secular history, not in the Gospels. He clearly wasn’t a character wracked with ambivalence about whether to crucify Yeshua.

The gospel authors couldn’t have Romans responsible for killing the son of God, because the Catholic Church became the Church of Rome. The solution was simple; they accused the anonymous Jewish rabble of wanting Jesus dead.
One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,
“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB). Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable.

The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked him:
“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB). The crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. The average Jew would have been appalled that one of their own was dying such a degrading death.

What’s more, if Jews had wanted to kill him, he would’ve been stoned, which could only have happened if the Romans gave them permission. Crucifixion was an agonizing, demeaning, public death, one reserved for insurgents. It was used only by Romans to intimidate anyone who might undermine their authority. The Roman soldiers always nailed zealots up naked on a cross; it was part of the humiliation. The display of anguish and humiliation was designed to discourage other charismatic leaders from having their own dangerous dreams.

The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the Bible. It’s been a primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history. The consequences have been devastating for the Jewish people, because many churches have harassed them as Christ-killers. Adolf Hitler, who was raised a catholic, wrote
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."(Mein Kampf p. 65.)

The sign or “titulus” (Latin for "inscription" or "label") was the Roman way of exhibiting the explanation for the execution. It was written by Pilate, and read “King of the Jews,” a reflection of Jesus’ real crime.

Luke had a dying Jesus say
“Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34, NJB), referring to the Roman soldiers who had just scourged, mocked and nailed him to a cross. Yeshua is more likely to have damned these soldiers with his dying breath.

A centurion supposedly said,
“In truth this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54, NJB). Yet Christianity, which claimed Jesus was the son of God, had yet to be invented!

The men Yeshua was crucified with were labeled as “lestai,” incorrectly translated in some Bibles as “robbers.” In fact “lestai” was a derogatory term for insurrectionists, who, by armed action, opposed Roman rule (http://www.drabruzzi.com/jesus_movement.htm and http://haqol.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/th...i-rebel/). So Jesus was crucified between two zealots, but we’re told wasn’t one himself. I think informed readers are too perceptive to fall for that.
Roman law allowed no burial rights to those killed by crucifixion. Yeshua’s emaciated body would have been left for the scavenging birds and dogs as a deterrent to others who might disobey Rome, although it’s possible Pilate made an exception and gave permission for the body to be buried.

Jesus’ death was a deeply disheartening development. Any military muscle the movement may have mounted in Jerusalem had not come to anything, and their commander had been crucified. The kingdom of God must have seemed like an unattainable dream. Yet all was not lost. Yeshua was only one man. The Nazarenes could bounce back, just as they had after John’s demise. Someone charismatic needed to take control. That person was James, Yeshua’s brother, who will be considered in the next chapter."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-04-2013, 06:22 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 09:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(03-04-2013 01:04 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Prove any of it. You can't prove one word of it. There is no evidence for any of it.
Nicodemus never claimed to have been at the trial.
Your' self-destruction" is just the usual fundie judgemental crap about anyone who could never believe this nonsense. But then you contradict all the time your Jebus who told you
"Judge not lest ye be judged", and "No one shall come to me UNLESS the Father draw him", so I guess you pick and choose whatever makes you feel superior, Church Lady.
These people would NEVER have been in the quarters of the Roman aristocrats. You cannot name any other peasant who ever had a trial, and there were no "front row seats". They NEVER claimed to have been there. And BTW you forgot to address the contradictions. Thanks for all your BS. This is a great learning opportunity you provide for any guest on how deluded you fundies are. You do the work of your devil better than any devil could.
The trial in John (19:41) "It was the Day of Prepration; and it was about noon", (when Pilate pronounces sentence).
(Of course that never happened. Jebus was a nobody, and there was a standing oder to execute trouble makers with no trial. Thousands of people were exected without trials. )
Oops. In Mark, Jebus lives all through that day, they have the Passover meal that night, and he is arrested that night, and dies the next morning around 9:00. Different time, different day. Dr Bart Ehrman agrees they are contradictory. So now YOU know more than he does ? Why does Jebus give a long speech in John, and Mark says he was silent ? They can't both be true. Of course John changed it, so Jebus could be the "lamb who dies", which is one of his personal themes. Of course you will deny this, which is obvious, as your psychological make-up NEEDS to delude yourself at any cost. I don't need to create contradictions. Anyone honest can see them.
Yes, I'm aware that Pilate executed many people without trials. Again, you're doing several things along with others on this thread:

1. Ducking the Bible record by not using the hypothesis method and looking at the actual text - bridges were built between the reigning Herod and Pilate--both sought for audiences with Jesus. Further, there was a MAJOR festival and thousands of diaspora Jews in Jerusalem in attendance that week. Pilate couldn't just open up the crucifixion doors without a major riot on his hands and had to be diplomatic... no, the Bible record aligns with the historical record--how Pilate was prone to be cruel but also give in to the Jews on occasion. Compare the tradition re: Pilate didn't behead the Jews for whom he said "no Torah Law" and then His flip-flop on Jesus makes sense.

2. I'd be truly HONORED to address your "new" contradictions, except for that you will clearly again press your "Prove any of it. You can't prove one word of it. There is no evidence for any of it." Since I have the Bible documents and you have personal, slanted assertions (most of the scholars you quote will say some, not none, of the events happened) you are asking me to respond without using the scriptures to prove the scriptures, which is a) insane b) YOU ARE ASSERTING A NEGATIVE WHICH CANNOT BE PROVED.

Ducking it all again, (the contradictions), I see, with absolutely not a shred of evidence except conjecture and speculation for all the rest. Jesus was a nobody. No one "sought" an audience with a nobody. Apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen. You have no proof of this. Just shamelessly cooking up more fairy tales, and you actually think someone is going to believe this garbage ? BTW the "diaspora" hadn't even happened yet, (more proof of your utter lack of education in this subject, and history in general ... throwing around "big words". Hahaha.). The gospels are proof of nothing. You need to learn how to construct an argument, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke. You're really not doing so well here, SPJTJ.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-04-2013, 06:44 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:Ducking it all again, (the contradictions), I see, with absolutely not a shred of evidence except conjecture and speculation for all the rest. Jesus was a nobody. No one "sought" an audience with a nobody. Apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen. You have no proof of this. Just shamelessly cooking up more fairy tales, and you actually think someone is going to believe this garbage ? BTW the "diaspora" hadn't even happened yet, (more proof of your utter lack of education in this subject, and history in general ... throwing around "big words". Hahaha.). The gospels are proof of nothing. You need to learn how to construct an argument, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke. You're really not doing so well here, SPJTJ.
BB, the Roman diaspora hadn't happened. The Babylonian and Assyian captivities had, and that and proselytization had scattered Jews through the Greek and Roman empires. This is how I know you don't read the scriptures, only snippets of "contradictions" from Google. How many epistles are written to those "12 tribes scattered abroad"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 06:51 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(04-04-2013 06:44 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Ducking it all again, (the contradictions), I see, with absolutely not a shred of evidence except conjecture and speculation for all the rest. Jesus was a nobody. No one "sought" an audience with a nobody. Apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen. You have no proof of this. Just shamelessly cooking up more fairy tales, and you actually think someone is going to believe this garbage ? BTW the "diaspora" hadn't even happened yet, (more proof of your utter lack of education in this subject, and history in general ... throwing around "big words". Hahaha.). The gospels are proof of nothing. You need to learn how to construct an argument, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke. You're really not doing so well here, SPJTJ.
BB, the Roman diaspora hadn't happened. The Babylonian and Assyian captivities had, and that and proselytization had scattered Jews through the Greek and Roman empires. This is how I know you don't read the scriptures, only snippets of "contradictions" from Google. How many epistles are written to those "12 tribes scattered abroad"?

Idiot. The "epistles" were written to Christian communities, not "Jews in diaspora". And, obviously, there is a world of differene in the political situation when Jebus was alive, and 40 years later. Have you ever considered getting an education ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 07:13 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:PJ...it is you who have the slanted assertions, because you have accepted the gospels on face value. We have taken the trouble to try to understand the real history of the times. We know the gospels are not historical...you assume they are. Now...if you show some evidence of understanding the cultural milieu in which Jeebus (may have) lived, and the one in which the gospels were written, your opinions will be taken seriously.
You don’t know that the gospels aren’t historical but are making claims because you disagree with the non-naturalist miracles presented within. Period. You won’t admit how many secular scholars agree that Jesus was an historical person who was baptized and crucified?
Quote:Allow me to give you an example. This is what I've written about the trial...
I’ll assist.
Quote:"The Trial
Matthew claims Jesus was arrested because he claimed he was divine, but Yeshua didn’t fantasize he was God. Jews believed in only one god, Yahweh, and he wouldn’t have had any helpers if he’d made such a blasphemous claim. Nor could the Romans have cared less about a peasant’s delusions of grandeur. They were wise enough to never get involved in Jewish religious disputes unless they turned into a security issue. The high priest, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, Pilate and his army all knew Yeshua had hoped to start a rebellion against Rome.
There was only One God, a plural One as described in the Hebrew of the Shema and elsewhere, an “echad”. Jews today still teach the Ruach Ha’ Kodesh (Holy Spirit) and Orthodox Passover litany describes Father and Son. The problem isn’t that the ancient Jews didn’t believe in a triune God, it’s that Jesus clearly claimed Sonship and echad-styled One-ship.
Quote: He was taken before Pilate and the accusation made:
“We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King.” (Luke 23:2 NKJ). Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the Jews and Jesus answered,
“It is as you say it” (Luke 23:3 NKJ). This perfectly described the crux of the issue: Jesus was accused of undermining the government and the taxation system. He effectively signed his own death warrant by admitting he thought he was king of the Jews. Genuine Jewish kings didn’t pay Roman tax, so this contradicted Jesus’ earlier injunction to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar (see Matthew 22:21). (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...rial.html)
[/quote]
The tax assumption is just that. He hadn’t signed a death warrant, He’d told Pilate His “army” was other-worldly. Note how you skipped the next verse:
“Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”
And of course, subsequent verses where Pilate found Christ INNOCENT which would, of course, include tax sedition. Epic fail, son.
Quote:Luke was the only author who had Jesus appear before Herod, and he related that Jesus refused to talk to him. Yeshua would have hated Herod, the man who had his cousin killed. Herod allegedly found him not guilty, which is impossible to believe, as the same author had earlier claimed Herod wanted him killed. (Luke 13:31).
Huh? Entire crowds of people sought to stone Jesus earlier, and after beating Him and crucifying them, He prayed for their forgiveness. “God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet HIS ENEMIES Christ died for us.” Epic, epic, epic fail, if you let the scriptures tell their story without your bizarre interpolations.
Quote:Then a Jewish crowd allegedly turned en masse against Jesus. Mark claimed,
“the chief priests however had incited the crowd” (Mark 15:11, NJB). This poorly explained excuse was the only reason given in any of the Gospels for “the crowd” turning against him. They shouted they wanted him crucified, and that they’d rather have Barabbas, a common criminal, freed in preference. No such custom of releasing the crowd’s favorite was ever recorded in any non-biblical document. There was probably no public trial. A trial with a Jewish crowd in attendance at that time of year would be just asking for trouble.
It’s implied this crowd was made up from the people of Jerusalem, who had been earlier described as the “multitudes” that had welcomed their king as a hero in an ancient ticker tape parade as he rode into the city. They’d allegedly thought he was a prophet and laid clothes and branches at his feet. The chief priests feared they’d create “an uproar” if Jesus was arrested. Can anyone imagine this crowd had a complete change of mind about their hero?
Indeed I can, which is why the scriptures include that the Rabbis incited the crowd (and earlier threatened excommunication for those in Jesus’s group). I’m pleading with you, I’m begging you, to understand, the Word of God is living and powerful and has real answers, miraculously it seems, for every supposed “contradiction”.
Quote:Romans were made to look as if they were innocent bystanders during the trial. Pilate read a letter from his wife about a dream she had that Jesus was innocent. Pilate supposedly said,
“I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4 KJV). He tried to talk the angry Jews out of having Jesus crucified, but gave in to the public clamor, because
“in fact a riot was imminent” (Matt. 27:24). So the crowd that was going to riot if Jesus was arrested (see Matt. 26:3–6) was now about to riot if he wasn’t crucified!
That is NOT what happened in Matthew 27. Verse 24 also says Pilate said, “It is your responsibility!” meaning the Jews could stone Jesus and He’d look the other way, but the Jews knew the scriptures that say, “Cursed is everyone hanged on a tree” and they wanted the Romans to deal with the body during Passover and to curse Jesus, etc. and God used this for our salvation.
Quote:Pilate washed his hands of any responsibility for the decision to kill Jesus. This didn’t happen; it was theatrical propaganda, not real history. To pronounce a man innocent, then command your troops to kill him anyway, is preposterous.
Have you never read the account where Pilate told the Jews to cease their “pagan” practices and they knelt before him to be beheaded to call his bluff and then he relented? We have evidence outside the Bible that Pilate was weak and like some of the Caesars, given to mob rule and bread and circuses. Everything all of us know about Roman-styled crowd pleasing makes sense here. Sorry.
Quote:Pilate’s job was to keep the peace and make sure Jews paid tax. From Pilate’s perspective Yeshua was nothing more than a vagrant and a dangerous subversive, so he would have regarded him with contempt and couldn’t have found him innocent.
Unless he was astonished by Jesus’s demeanor, including lack of fear, decision not to defend Himself, even against persecution and crucifixion, etc. and his wife’s flipped-out vision of great suffering (Hell?) on Jesus’s account. Jesus “made a good confession for Pontius Pilate.”
Quote:The man described by secular historians was notorious for his cruelty toward the Jews. Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, writing in 41 CE, stated that Pilate’s tenure was associated with
“briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301–302). Josephus too reported several instances of Pilate flagrantly inciting an insurrection, which he then ruthlessly purged with his soldiers. In 36 CE, Vitellius, the Roman Syrian governor, removed Pilate from his office after a particularly violent attack on the Samaritans (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.85). He was ordered to Rome to face complaints of excessive cruelty against the Jews, found culpable, and exiled to Vienne, France. His true colors come across in secular history, not in the Gospels. He clearly wasn’t a character wracked with ambivalence about whether to crucify Yeshua.
I know all that. The Bible is making an extraordinary claim that the weak and vicious Pilate tried to get Jesus exonerated. So what else is new? The whole book is full of extraordinary claims, right? Would you prefer this lined up too with Jesus being a normal person, not divine? I mean, you do have problems with every single extension of God’s power in the entire Bible, right? The contemporaries who read the accounts when they were written would know. Tens of thousands of people were at the Festival and likely thousands at the judgment pavement!
Quote:10The gospel authors couldn’t have Romans responsible for killing the son of God, because the Catholic Church became the Church of Rome. The solution was simple; they accused the anonymous Jewish rabble of wanting Jesus dead.
Are you on drugs? I date the Roman Church to 325. Is this when you’re claiming the gospels were written?
And the Rabbis were accused of inciting the crowd, not the “rabble”.
Quote:One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,
“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB). Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable.
If you’re a Catholic Crusader from the medieval age who wanted to kill Jews, sure. But most real Christians pray that Christ’s blood be on them and their children. This oft-misused verse is another ironic demonstration that the Jews would have Messiah save them, just as the High Priest’s imprecation was a prophecy. Jesus’s (atoning) blood on the Jews. Hallejujah! When you are born again, you better understand God’s sense of irony in prophecy. Irony, like tolerating freethinkers who mock and attack incessantly.
Quote:The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked him:
“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB). The crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. The average Jew would have been appalled that one of their own was dying such a degrading death.
Mark, that’s nice that you offer compassion for ancient people like that. However, Jesus was dying for blasphemy and not taxation issues. His crime was written adjacent to His cross! In EVERY example where the crowd was incensed to attack the Messiah, He was claiming Messiahship and divinity.
Quote:What’s more, if Jews had wanted to kill him, he would’ve been stoned, which could only have happened if the Romans gave them permission. Crucifixion was an agonizing, demeaning, public death, one reserved for insurgents. It was used only by Romans to intimidate anyone who might undermine their authority. The Roman soldiers always nailed zealots up naked on a cross; it was part of the humiliation. The display of anguish and humiliation was designed to discourage other charismatic leaders from having their own dangerous dreams.
Right. And there are numerous prophecies of being stripped and ashamed. Right. Stoning was not as cursed as hanging on a tree in the scriptures, right?
Quote:The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the Bible. It’s been a primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history. The consequences have been devastating for the Jewish people, because many churches have harassed them as Christ-killers. Adolf Hitler, who was raised a catholic, wrote
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."(Mein Kampf p. 65.)
No, it’s one of the most disgraceful deceptions of the Roman Church or of taking the scriptures out of context, which show that God forgave both the Jews who called for death and the Romans who executed. Just like freethinkers get angry and vicious (often) when brought messages of the love of God, yes, people called for Christ’s vile crucifixion. Mark, you understand this well!
Quote:The sign or “titulus” (Latin for "inscription" or "label") was the Roman way of exhibiting the explanation for the execution. It was written by Pilate, and read “King of the Jews,” a reflection of Jesus’ real crime.
See above. His crime was not mere political insurgency or tax issues. He also WAS the King through Joseph and Mary in their descent from David. You see the IRONY yet?
Quote: Luke had a dying Jesus say
“Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34, NJB), referring to the Roman soldiers who had just scourged, mocked and nailed him to a cross. Yeshua is more likely to have damned these soldiers with his dying breath.
That’s not nice.
Quote:A centurion supposedly said,
“In truth this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54, NJB). Yet Christianity, which claimed Jesus was the son of God, had yet to be invented!
Gosh, maybe the solider heard the religious debate where Jesus told Pharisees everyone to whom God’s Word comes is a son, as the HB says… I mean, really? How many threads are there claiming Jesus’s Sonship is stolen from a pagan religion’s story of Sonship and resurrection? BE CONSISTENT.
Quote:The men Yeshua was crucified with were labeled as “lestai,” incorrectly translated in some Bibles as “robbers.” In fact “lestai” was a derogatory term for insurrectionists, who, by armed action, opposed Roman rule (http://www.drabruzzi.com/jesus_movement.htm and http://haqol.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/th...i-rebel/). So Jesus was crucified between two zealots, but we’re told wasn’t one himself. I think informed readers are too perceptive to fall for that.
And? One of the twelve was a zealot. So?
Quote:Roman law allowed no burial rights to those killed by crucifixion. Yeshua’s emaciated body would have been left for the scavenging birds and dogs as a deterrent to others who might disobey Rome, although it’s possible Pilate made an exception and gave permission for the body to be buried.
Gosh, thanks for “allowing that” since the scriptures are plain that a very brave follower sucked it up and asked for a decent burial.
Quote:Jesus’ death was a deeply disheartening development. Any military muscle the movement may have mounted in Jerusalem had not come to anything, and their commander had been crucified. The kingdom of God must have seemed like an unattainable dream. Yet all was not lost. Yeshua was only one man. The Nazarenes could bounce back, just as they had after John’s demise. Someone charismatic needed to take control. That person was James, Yeshua’s brother, who will be considered in the next chapter."
Oy, vey. Of course, we’ll just skip the 120 who spoke in tongues, Peter who baptized thousands, and of course, all the time Jesus spent teaching and discipling after His RESURRECTION.
I’m done on this thread. Feel free to have the last word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 07:47 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
LOL. I see why he would give up.

"Oy, vey. Of course, we’ll just skip the 120 who spoke in tongues, Peter who baptized thousands, and of course, all the time Jesus spent teaching and discipling after His RESURRECTION.
I’m done on this thread. Feel free to have the last word."

Do you have any idea how many mental patients babble in tongues ? It proves nothing, AND you have provided NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE for ANYy of your fundie garbage, who or how many Peter baptized, and even if he did what it would mean. Jebus never did a thing after he was executed. Matthew says even JUST BEFORE he "ascended" they "saw but they doubted". SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke, it's time to stop making up shit and fairy tales and pretending you know anything about what you speak about, and go get some mental help for your delusions. Maybe there are pills that can help you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(04-04-2013 07:13 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The tax assumption is just that. He hadn’t signed a death warrant, He’d told Pilate His “army” was other-worldly. Note how you skipped the next verse:
“Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

Oh oh. Looks like somebody only skimmed Mark's response:
Romans were made to look as if they were innocent bystanders during the trial. Pilate read a letter from his wife about a dream she had that Jesus was innocent. Pilate supposedly said, “I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4 KJV).

Epic fail indeed. You're fired.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 07:09 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(04-04-2013 07:13 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:PJ...it is you who have the slanted assertions, because you have accepted the gospels on face value. We have taken the trouble to try to understand the real history of the times. We know the gospels are not historical...you assume they are. Now...if you show some evidence of understanding the cultural milieu in which Jeebus (may have) lived, and the one in which the gospels were written, your opinions will be taken seriously.
You don’t know that the gospels aren’t historical but are making claims because you disagree with the non-naturalist miracles presented within. Period. You won’t admit how many secular scholars agree that Jesus was an historical person who was baptized and crucified?
Quote:Allow me to give you an example. This is what I've written about the trial...
I’ll assist.
Quote:"The Trial
Matthew claims Jesus was arrested because he claimed he was divine, but Yeshua didn’t fantasize he was God. Jews believed in only one god, Yahweh, and he wouldn’t have had any helpers if he’d made such a blasphemous claim. Nor could the Romans have cared less about a peasant’s delusions of grandeur. They were wise enough to never get involved in Jewish religious disputes unless they turned into a security issue. The high priest, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, Pilate and his army all knew Yeshua had hoped to start a rebellion against Rome.
There was only One God, a plural One as described in the Hebrew of the Shema and elsewhere, an “echad”. Jews today still teach the Ruach Ha’ Kodesh (Holy Spirit) and Orthodox Passover litany describes Father and Son. The problem isn’t that the ancient Jews didn’t believe in a triune God, it’s that Jesus clearly claimed Sonship and echad-styled One-ship.
Quote: He was taken before Pilate and the accusation made:
“We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King.” (Luke 23:2 NKJ). Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the Jews and Jesus answered,
“It is as you say it” (Luke 23:3 NKJ). This perfectly described the crux of the issue: Jesus was accused of undermining the government and the taxation system. He effectively signed his own death warrant by admitting he thought he was king of the Jews. Genuine Jewish kings didn’t pay Roman tax, so this contradicted Jesus’ earlier injunction to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar (see Matthew 22:21). (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...rial.html)
The tax assumption is just that. He hadn’t signed a death warrant, He’d told Pilate His “army” was other-worldly. Note how you skipped the next verse:
“Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”
And of course, subsequent verses where Pilate found Christ INNOCENT which would, of course, include tax sedition. Epic fail, son.
Quote:Luke was the only author who had Jesus appear before Herod, and he related that Jesus refused to talk to him. Yeshua would have hated Herod, the man who had his cousin killed. Herod allegedly found him not guilty, which is impossible to believe, as the same author had earlier claimed Herod wanted him killed. (Luke 13:31).
Huh? Entire crowds of people sought to stone Jesus earlier, and after beating Him and crucifying them, He prayed for their forgiveness. “God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet HIS ENEMIES Christ died for us.” Epic, epic, epic fail, if you let the scriptures tell their story without your bizarre interpolations.
Quote:Then a Jewish crowd allegedly turned en masse against Jesus. Mark claimed,
“the chief priests however had incited the crowd” (Mark 15:11, NJB). This poorly explained excuse was the only reason given in any of the Gospels for “the crowd” turning against him. They shouted they wanted him crucified, and that they’d rather have Barabbas, a common criminal, freed in preference. No such custom of releasing the crowd’s favorite was ever recorded in any non-biblical document. There was probably no public trial. A trial with a Jewish crowd in attendance at that time of year would be just asking for trouble.
It’s implied this crowd was made up from the people of Jerusalem, who had been earlier described as the “multitudes” that had welcomed their king as a hero in an ancient ticker tape parade as he rode into the city. They’d allegedly thought he was a prophet and laid clothes and branches at his feet. The chief priests feared they’d create “an uproar” if Jesus was arrested. Can anyone imagine this crowd had a complete change of mind about their hero?
Indeed I can, which is why the scriptures include that the Rabbis incited the crowd (and earlier threatened excommunication for those in Jesus’s group). I’m pleading with you, I’m begging you, to understand, the Word of God is living and powerful and has real answers, miraculously it seems, for every supposed “contradiction”.
Quote:Romans were made to look as if they were innocent bystanders during the trial. Pilate read a letter from his wife about a dream she had that Jesus was innocent. Pilate supposedly said,
“I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4 KJV). He tried to talk the angry Jews out of having Jesus crucified, but gave in to the public clamor, because
“in fact a riot was imminent” (Matt. 27:24). So the crowd that was going to riot if Jesus was arrested (see Matt. 26:3–6) was now about to riot if he wasn’t crucified!
That is NOT what happened in Matthew 27. Verse 24 also says Pilate said, “It is your responsibility!” meaning the Jews could stone Jesus and He’d look the other way, but the Jews knew the scriptures that say, “Cursed is everyone hanged on a tree” and they wanted the Romans to deal with the body during Passover and to curse Jesus, etc. and God used this for our salvation.
Quote:Pilate washed his hands of any responsibility for the decision to kill Jesus. This didn’t happen; it was theatrical propaganda, not real history. To pronounce a man innocent, then command your troops to kill him anyway, is preposterous.
Have you never read the account where Pilate told the Jews to cease their “pagan” practices and they knelt before him to be beheaded to call his bluff and then he relented? We have evidence outside the Bible that Pilate was weak and like some of the Caesars, given to mob rule and bread and circuses. Everything all of us know about Roman-styled crowd pleasing makes sense here. Sorry.
Quote:Pilate’s job was to keep the peace and make sure Jews paid tax. From Pilate’s perspective Yeshua was nothing more than a vagrant and a dangerous subversive, so he would have regarded him with contempt and couldn’t have found him innocent.
Unless he was astonished by Jesus’s demeanor, including lack of fear, decision not to defend Himself, even against persecution and crucifixion, etc. and his wife’s flipped-out vision of great suffering (Hell?) on Jesus’s account. Jesus “made a good confession for Pontius Pilate.”
Quote:The man described by secular historians was notorious for his cruelty toward the Jews. Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, writing in 41 CE, stated that Pilate’s tenure was associated with
“briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301–302). Josephus too reported several instances of Pilate flagrantly inciting an insurrection, which he then ruthlessly purged with his soldiers. In 36 CE, Vitellius, the Roman Syrian governor, removed Pilate from his office after a particularly violent attack on the Samaritans (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.85). He was ordered to Rome to face complaints of excessive cruelty against the Jews, found culpable, and exiled to Vienne, France. His true colors come across in secular history, not in the Gospels. He clearly wasn’t a character wracked with ambivalence about whether to crucify Yeshua.
I know all that. The Bible is making an extraordinary claim that the weak and vicious Pilate tried to get Jesus exonerated. So what else is new? The whole book is full of extraordinary claims, right? Would you prefer this lined up too with Jesus being a normal person, not divine? I mean, you do have problems with every single extension of God’s power in the entire Bible, right? The contemporaries who read the accounts when they were written would know. Tens of thousands of people were at the Festival and likely thousands at the judgment pavement!
Quote:10The gospel authors couldn’t have Romans responsible for killing the son of God, because the Catholic Church became the Church of Rome. The solution was simple; they accused the anonymous Jewish rabble of wanting Jesus dead.
Are you on drugs? I date the Roman Church to 325. Is this when you’re claiming the gospels were written?
And the Rabbis were accused of inciting the crowd, not the “rabble”.
Quote:One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,
“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB). Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable.
If you’re a Catholic Crusader from the medieval age who wanted to kill Jews, sure. But most real Christians pray that Christ’s blood be on them and their children. This oft-misused verse is another ironic demonstration that the Jews would have Messiah save them, just as the High Priest’s imprecation was a prophecy. Jesus’s (atoning) blood on the Jews. Hallejujah! When you are born again, you better understand God’s sense of irony in prophecy. Irony, like tolerating freethinkers who mock and attack incessantly.
Quote:The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked him:
“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB). The crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. The average Jew would have been appalled that one of their own was dying such a degrading death.
Mark, that’s nice that you offer compassion for ancient people like that. However, Jesus was dying for blasphemy and not taxation issues. His crime was written adjacent to His cross! In EVERY example where the crowd was incensed to attack the Messiah, He was claiming Messiahship and divinity.
Quote:What’s more, if Jews had wanted to kill him, he would’ve been stoned, which could only have happened if the Romans gave them permission. Crucifixion was an agonizing, demeaning, public death, one reserved for insurgents. It was used only by Romans to intimidate anyone who might undermine their authority. The Roman soldiers always nailed zealots up naked on a cross; it was part of the humiliation. The display of anguish and humiliation was designed to discourage other charismatic leaders from having their own dangerous dreams.
Right. And there are numerous prophecies of being stripped and ashamed. Right. Stoning was not as cursed as hanging on a tree in the scriptures, right?
Quote:The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the Bible. It’s been a primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history. The consequences have been devastating for the Jewish people, because many churches have harassed them as Christ-killers. Adolf Hitler, who was raised a catholic, wrote
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."(Mein Kampf p. 65.)
No, it’s one of the most disgraceful deceptions of the Roman Church or of taking the scriptures out of context, which show that God forgave both the Jews who called for death and the Romans who executed. Just like freethinkers get angry and vicious (often) when brought messages of the love of God, yes, people called for Christ’s vile crucifixion. Mark, you understand this well!
Quote:The sign or “titulus” (Latin for "inscription" or "label") was the Roman way of exhibiting the explanation for the execution. It was written by Pilate, and read “King of the Jews,” a reflection of Jesus’ real crime.
See above. His crime was not mere political insurgency or tax issues. He also WAS the King through Joseph and Mary in their descent from David. You see the IRONY yet?
Quote: Luke had a dying Jesus say
“Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34, NJB), referring to the Roman soldiers who had just scourged, mocked and nailed him to a cross. Yeshua is more likely to have damned these soldiers with his dying breath.
That’s not nice.
Quote:A centurion supposedly said,
“In truth this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54, NJB). Yet Christianity, which claimed Jesus was the son of God, had yet to be invented!
Gosh, maybe the solider heard the religious debate where Jesus told Pharisees everyone to whom God’s Word comes is a son, as the HB says… I mean, really? How many threads are there claiming Jesus’s Sonship is stolen from a pagan religion’s story of Sonship and resurrection? BE CONSISTENT.
Quote:The men Yeshua was crucified with were labeled as “lestai,” incorrectly translated in some Bibles as “robbers.” In fact “lestai” was a derogatory term for insurrectionists, who, by armed action, opposed Roman rule (http://www.drabruzzi.com/jesus_movement.htm and http://haqol.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/th...i-rebel/). So Jesus was crucified between two zealots, but we’re told wasn’t one himself. I think informed readers are too perceptive to fall for that.
And? One of the twelve was a zealot. So?
Quote:Roman law allowed no burial rights to those killed by crucifixion. Yeshua’s emaciated body would have been left for the scavenging birds and dogs as a deterrent to others who might disobey Rome, although it’s possible Pilate made an exception and gave permission for the body to be buried.
Gosh, thanks for “allowing that” since the scriptures are plain that a very brave follower sucked it up and asked for a decent burial.
Quote:Jesus’ death was a deeply disheartening development. Any military muscle the movement may have mounted in Jerusalem had not come to anything, and their commander had been crucified. The kingdom of God must have seemed like an unattainable dream. Yet all was not lost. Yeshua was only one man. The Nazarenes could bounce back, just as they had after John’s demise. Someone charismatic needed to take control. That person was James, Yeshua’s brother, who will be considered in the next chapter."
Oy, vey. Of course, we’ll just skip the 120 who spoke in tongues, Peter who baptized thousands, and of course, all the time Jesus spent teaching and discipling after His RESURRECTION.
I’m done on this thread. Feel free to have the last word.
[/quote]




I think I know why you're "done." You're suffering from cognitive dissonance, when facts and beliefs are in opposition to each other, and that's emotionally draining.

There's a simple solution. Become open-minded.

I sense your exasperation, your desperation, and your concern for my welfare. This is why you resort to pleading with me to just accept the word of God. In reality, however, what you're really desperately hoping is that I (and others like me) accept your belief system as legitimate... so that YOUR own understanding of the world is given credence.

So, in reality, this whole scenario is YOUR problem, not mine.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 11:39 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Hello everyone, I am fresh new to the forum here. This conversation is like double dutch with 6 or 7 ropes and many people jumping; I am not sure where to jump in to begin. I certainly need to read the back up messages. I am not here to argue but sincerely discuss. So, I ask in advance for some patience if its possible. My questions are sincere, not loaded or rhetorical. I am trying to understand and work out my own thinking.

Someone wrote:

"it is you who have the slanted assertions, because you have accepted the gospels on face value. We have taken the trouble to try to understand the real history of the times. We know the gospels are not historical...you assume they are. Now...if you show some evidence of understanding the cultural milieu in which Jeebus (may have) lived, and the one in which the gospels were written, your opinions will be taken seriously."

Biblicism is very frustrating and destructive for any real inquiry. I do feel, after wrestling with this belief system in others, that it is important to understand that it is also a complicated reaction (which is beside the point for this post.) Biblicism is taking the "Bible" and "New Testament" as a word for word literal handbook written by God by, I don't know, I suppose human beings with their eyes rolled back in their heads thrashing about in a trance of automatic writing. I know there is one scene in the "OT" (please excuse my quotes, it is late here and I am not comfortable with these titles but I am too tired to find the proper terms right now. I could say Torah, but I am not sure which book this is in and where the Torah ends at the moment. I will not be a lazy in the future) a scene of Saul becoming entranced and beside himself but other than that, this kind of idea, from my understanding of the culture and context of the literature, which is limited because it is amazingly complex and I am still just beginning, in the context of the literature and culture; the idea of this being the way the Bible was written is not Jewish, or Hebrew and would probably be considered as unholy.

With that being said, when we you say you understand the real history of the times, I would like to ask you and everyone which times? How? What sources, primary and secondary have helped shape your understanding of "the times." And are you considering that the project is complicated further by spanning many many years, exiles and homecomings, and cultural dispensations? That the Hebrew people are a culture in process and so their religious writings would reflect that. I guess I am asking, how do you understand the old testament?

I see your statement that the gospels aren't historical as very problematic. Sincerely, no shade intended. They are certainly historical, no? Something doesn't have to be completely factual (not presuming what is or isn't factual at this time) to be a historical document.

Someone else wrote "Romans have cared less about a peasant’s delusions of grandeur. They were wise enough to never get involved in Jewish religious disputes unless they turned into a security issue."

Why do you say this? It seems like you are taking for granted, from your vantage point as a citizen of a country where church and state have been separated, for the most part, and where one man making waves religiously would not ever be considered a security risk. Are you sure your opinion is one submerged in the context? Palestine was an occupied land by a foreign power. The Hebrew culture did not have a distinction between religion/politics. It was also a culture waiting for a messiah like figure, especially at such a difficult time.

If I can try to make a parallel at what I am getting at, in 1890 United States with the Ghost Dance movement that culminated in the massacre at Wounded Knee. It was dancing. The political and spiritual terrain was also much more complicated in terms of space and numbers of occupied Nations. As the dancing and the hope it brought began to spread, though it was simply a religious phenomenon, the State was threatened enough to take deplorable action to stop it.

Now, in Palestine at the time, there were previous attempts at revolts on religious lines, and anyway that line was not clear. I just feel that there are so many presumptions made without any substantiation of these presumptions. When someone says something, the burden of proof is on them. You say the Romans wouldn't care about Jewish religious disputes unless it became a matter of security. Ok, then... for example? What are you basing this on? Thank you for reading, and I will appreciate and learn from your response.

I do have one more question. I know I am new, and so this may seem precocious but why say "Jeebus?" When having a dialogue with someone who worships this figure, this man, whoever... what gain is there in this? How does it contribute to productive dialogue and debate? What point is there in using this word other than perhaps slight "conversational terrorism" or using this word as a tactic to ruffle the feathers of the other? I am not saying this is what you are doing, I just got here - there might be a lot I don't know. I am not offended. I am curious about what the point is of that? Thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 11:50 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(23-03-2013 08:34 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  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."

This sounds like a questions for a linguist. Are you familiar with other languages? In Thailand for instance, my name changes sound because they are a tonal language and another friends name could not possibly remain as it was because they didn't even have the same sound. But I guess more to the point, we aren't talking about people in a Spanish class together. The name had to transverse complicated social and cultural space and time, in another era where who knows what the politics of translation were. When a culture takes a figure into their own culture, and this figure brings a lot of changes - the culture, for various reasons, would alter the name to fit into their dialogue and culture enough to have the currency it needed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: