Since my last article about Jesus got SO MANY comments, and since I'm a point whore, I just HAVE to try again.
The last article was wondering if Jesus had a wife and kids, since that's what Jewish guys just did back then:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977138291
Lots of things about Jesus were brought up, and brought into question. One guy even seemed to suggest that my whole point was to be rude to Christianity, by bringing up such a queston. I think I was rude to Roman Catholics (because I'm bringing up marriage and sex) but I was also very nice to the Orthodox Church (and they consider themselves "Christian", too, thank you).
My point of THIS article is that it seems to me odd that we make such a big deal in religion about the *name* of Jesus - like the mere sound of it has some magic.
Is "Jesus" a magic word? The mere sound of it is supposed to drive out demons, right? And heal the sick. And, of course, forgive (you're not supposed to ask "Isis" for that anymore).
He wasn't called "Jesus". That name is a purely English invention. He was called something like "Yehoshua" or "Yoshua", or something, and that would translate to Joshua, if we were being honest. But nobody is going to print a corrective version of the Bible soon with "Joshua" on the cross. People want Jesus to have his own exclusive name, even though he had a common name for the time.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 77
all the children of the world
red and yellow, black and white
we are precious in His sight
Joshua loves the little children of the world."
jehovah loves all the little children of the world!
Bedros
Boutros
Kipha
Panos
Parkin
Parle
Parnel
Parnella
Parris
Parry
Peadair
Peadar
Pearce
Pedar
Peder
Pedr
Pedrine
Pedro
Peer
Pelle
Per
Perkin
Pernel
Pernella
Pernelle
Pernille
Pero
Perren
Perrin
Perrine
Perry
Peta
Pete
Petey
Petr
Petra
Petras
Petri
Petrie
Petrina
Petrine
Petrona
Petronella
Petronelle
Petronia
Petronilla
Petronille
Petros
Petrus
Pettis
Petya
Pierce
Pieretta
Pierette
Pierina
Piero
Pierre
Pierrot
Piers
Pierson
Piet
Pietari
Pieter
Pietra
Pietro
Piotr
Pita
Pyotr
They ALL mean Peter so why did your parents call you Peter?
Oh because you speak English and it is easier to relate to!
Got that?
Good point about magic words here. Anyone who has read The Bible critically will have been struck by the fact that Jesus actually spells out pretty clearly that people should not worship him of make an icon of his name. So I don't.
Your other point about the name is not quite a bullseye. Jesus is not a Jewish name on two counts As you say it is the Anglicisation of the Latinisation of Joshua but in the case of the Essene sect (the "Jews" are pretty much a myth actually) Joshua would have been a high ranking priest, The Joshua.
And for the record Jesus' Dad was not a "humble carpenter" but a Ho Tekton, literally a Master of the Craft ( a Magus.) Ignore any talk of The Hewbrew Sriptures, there was never any such language as Hebrew, up in Galilee they spoke Greek, in Judea the language was Aramaic, same as the Assyrians.
For 2000 years we have been conned.
But I have always said Chistians fear the truth because if the truth is ever revealed they will not have a religion
Let's look at some 2,000-year-old records that document your beliefs today.
My beliefs need no documentatyion Dave, the sun comes up and goes down. The tides rise and fall in concert with the moon, the seasons change. Day follows night as night follows day. And life goes on. That sums up my beliefs.
That is very simple, too. Just as if someone says something negative about your mama (assuming you respect your Mom) it is a sensitive place because you have enormous love & respect for her. More is the love for the Lord.
Got that?
Actually Peter is not English, the English rendition is Piers. So why did his parents call him Peter? Well there was no law said they couldn't. It was not the same in Palestine 2000 years Before Present.
But would you call my French friend Pierre "Peter" because it comes easier to English speaking throats? Of course not. You would call him by the name his is known by.
Problem is we don't know who this Jesus person was if he was even real. Chistians like to cite Roman evidence to back up his claim to reality but the Imperial Annals of Rome only say that a man proclaimed by his followers as the Messiah was executed for preaching seditious sermons.
There were many people running round Palestine at the time being proclaimed The Messiah by different groups of religious maniacs but the most likely person referred to was Johannes of Gamala.
The whole Bible thing starts to crumble very quickly when tested against documented history.
Actually Susan you are taking a bit of a liberty in saying all those names "mean" Peter. In fact only Peter means Peter, all the names in the list derive from the Greek word Petros, meaning stone except for Pierson (son of Pier) and Perkin (kin of Per.)
Oops, you got both the person and the tense wrong, Ian. You really need to work on your grammar. "You don't know that he is real." It's not necessarily a permanent condition, though!
Vacuous, means empty, without substance.
To believe means to accept something as true without evidence.
All all the evidence indicates Jesus is a fictional character invented many years after the supposed events therefore I would suggest your claims rather than mine (which can all be backed up with evidence) are vacuous.
Keep digging Dave.
Got that Susan K.?
UNIVERSAL MOTHER
Am I a quibbler, but
Mary is only English but
a Universal Mother
Maia was the mom of Buddha
who rules the East
another Maia
was the mom of Hermes
born in a humble grotto
Miryam, mother of Jesus
or Miriam in better English
in English English, which rules
Mary from some Latin
who rules the West
Maya did Agni Hindu God of Fire
Myrrha did Adonis and our favorite
Bacchus!
Maya Maria gave Sommona Cadom
a Siamese Savior
Mariama and Krishna
or call her Mary
if you really like Latin
Very interesting question Peter (which actually was not a name at all to begin with, it meant "rock" from the Greek and was a moniker used to refer to the founder of the Roman Catholic religion... Like Judah Macabee the "Hammer" (the Greek word for "hammer" then becoming the name given to children to commemorate that fellow (I don't know the Greek name for "hammer")) ...
Jesus had a name for sure, he was just walking around like anybody else and people had to refer to him as somebody.
came from "Hey You"
haha
Do you know when the name was converted to the Latin form for "Jesus" ??? The Roman had a fondness for changing names of places and people... The World was "Roman" after all... and it tended to centralize things (one factor of the 'success' of the Romans) ...
They also changed names for other reasons... After expelling most of the Jews from Judea as it was called up until then since... (I'm not sure at the moment) ... They changed the name to "Palestine" to erase or remove the cultural connection of the Jews to their land of Judea... "Palestine" most likely came from another local people/Region of the area Philistine ... (no negative connotation - it's the name of the people)...
any whoo interesting question again...
:)
So I'm a GREAT novelist as Peter Joseph Swanson - that middle name finally came in handy!!!
(humility was always a problem)
Romans liked to just erase everything they didn't like.
First, The Torah is written in Classical Hebrew... an older language than Aramaic... Aramaic became the spoken 'lingua franca' of the region by the time of 0 BC ...
Second, 2000 years ago there was no "Palestine" as Peter Pointed out, after the Jewish Revolt and subsequent expulsion of the Jews... Judea (which at one time had been the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah) was changed by the Romans to "Palestine" in 136 a.d. (C.E.) ...
Just as it is the meaning behind the story... not the story itself...
Asking if he had a wife and kids is, since the Bible gives such scant evidence of history, or wrong history (Pontius Pilate was not nice and fair ... and there was no slaughter of babies by Herod).
(or that's one of them)
"I Am"
uh, except was Spanish being spoken at the time?
Trivia= first several episodes of Raw Hide TV series listed the cast, and the kid that took care of the horses was listed as Jesus. A few episodes later he was listed phonetically as "Heysoos"
My name is David Jeremy Evans
I am adopted... adopted at birth
My Adoptive parents never met my Birth parents...
My adoptive parents named me with the Jeremy as my middle name...
By birth mother wanted to name Jeremy as my first name (she always liked the name David too)
My last name is Evans (probably an Irish or Scottish origin to that common name - but my adoptive father's father came over from Russia/Poland with the name Ivanchick probably meaning Ivan's Son where as The Scottish Evans came from Evan's Son or MacEwen... At the immigration station they changed his name to "Chick Evans" ... Chick was his nickname...)
Evan in Hebrew means Stone...
My adoptive Father's Name Was Richard "Dick" Stone...
His Father had changed the family's name from Goldstone because of the antisemitism in this country, he wanted to shed the "Gold" part of the name... (originally GoldStein or GeldStein from Europe...)
Gold in Hebrew is "Zahav" as in Jerushalaim shel Zahave: Jerusalem of Gold...
Evan + Z(ahav) = Evans... that's me... :)
(I know that last step is a stretch... but I like it...)
Best..
DJE
However, in the interest of the feeble mindeness of our modern culture as adequately displayed by those who try to accept all these bedtime stories as factual, I'll respond with factual evidence that may or may not help lay to rest some of their (and your) questions. The question here is whether there is power in the name, Jesus. And the answer is, that depends. If spoken by someone who does not believe or by someone who is testing God as if this were a science experiment, the answer is no. God will not be used as if He were a parlor trick or if he were some goon at your beck & call. God is the power and master of the universe and to try to use Him in that fashion is backward - we are at His beck & call. However, when used earnestly, with sincere belief and prayer with an attitude of submission and supplication or understanding that God will protect His followers, then the answer is yes. In that case there is no name more powerful under any circumstance than Jesus - and not Joshua, nor Jesus Martinez, but Jesus - the King of Kings & Lord of Lords who reigns in all of glory and will come again to judge the quick and the dead.
As far as records of His existence are concerned, you see what you want to see. There are nine copies of contemporary records (from four sources) regarding Julius Caesar. Do we question his existence? Why not? Because there are only nine. But why are these nine so reliable hat we accept them without hesitation and without question? On the other hand, without including the Bible, there are still over 10,000 known copies of contemporary records containing references to Jesus from seven separate sources, and three of them are secular. If we can accept Julius Caesar as being factual based on nine copies from four sources why is so hard to accept Jesus of Nazareth based on > 10,000 from seven? And before you say this let me nip this in the bud - don't say anything about the religious angle, because Caesar thought he was a god, too.
P.S. About the marriage idea - Paul of Tarsus, Barnabas, Timothy & John Mark were all unmarried too. It's also believed that at least the Apostle John was unmarried. Point being, there were a lot of unmarried Jews in that day, including Saul/Paul before he ever met Jesus. So much for your theory that all Jewish men had to be married. It's a sham & a stereotype (which I'm sure you despise when applied to yourself) and basically full of holes.
the Evans does fit with
Evan + Z(ahav)
vs.
Stone + G(old)
Evans
ha ha
Though this article is obviously written tongue in cheek, I think the responses highlight the big issues between those that consider themselves "Christians" and those who don't. Too many self-professed Christians seem to think what you call him and how you worship him is more important than emulating him. Were those who called themselves Chritian to actually behave more like their namesake, they'd likely get less flak from those who disagree with them on theology.
The fact that humans have twisted God and religion and used them to commit atrocities is by no means news. This has occurred since the dawn of time. But name one this that humans haven't twisted and misused to commit atrocities. Science, when used accurately and wisely, has the capacity to enhance our lives and make them fuller. Because of the advancements of science the average life expectancy has increased over the past 200 years from approx. 55 to approx. 85. However, hundreds of thousands have died because of science as well from implements of war and from the other incorrect use of its tools. Should we then condemn all scientists and science because of the acts of a few? That's the logic behind the argument that is used here.
same thing goes with finances. In and of itself, money is nothing more than a tool that can enhance our lives since the world uses it as a way to exchange goods and services. But how many people have used money as a means of controlling others? Should we then condemn money?
This can be related to any number of other issues - the point being that humans, because we are basically selfish and self-centered, can corrupt and twist anything. So should we condemn everything based on the actions of a handful that actually do? I don't think so either. Actually, Jesus didn't think so either.
The point is, you can shred Christians who attempt to make a difference if you'd like. It's not new - it's been sport since the ancient days. They used to make a sport out of feeding us to hungry lions while spectators wagered on which lion would each which one first. Even those "self-professed Christians", Penny. Just a side thought - who else will profess that they are? I don't know what your particular views & beliefs are, but if you are a non-self-professed Christian, let me point you in the direction of your Bible to Matthew chapter 7, verses 3-5: " 'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.' "
He did what he did, regardless of what stories were told after... or are read now or at any time in between...
The importance of any story is it's meaning not the story itself... in which ever language or in whichever set of linguistic imagery... or whichever set of events and characters...
quoting verses has use in common understanding of a story and its meaning... any story may have multiple meanings to multiple people... A story is a set of linguistic elements that conveys a meaning, but it is not perfect ... it is a proxy for reality or thought, which is beyond full linguistic representation...
The difficulty in discussing issues with those who have vested interest based on Faith is that they will see what ever they want in order to explain their faith... Reality is complex enough in that way for a path to be found to some explanation ... though some are tenuous and tend to stretch a bit... and rely more heavily on Faith...
There is nothing personal in this statement...
It is the Meaning not the Story... It is the Meaning... Not the Person...
and
beam
The comparisons you make to Science and Finance are apples and oranges. I said nothing about Christians using their religion to do bad things...every religion has been guilty of that. What I said was that too many Christians consider themselves "saved" because they have "accepted Jesus as Lord", when they have done so in words only. Meanwhile, they preach from the rafters that those who have not "found Jesus" are doomed to hell, though many of the latter behave more in accordance to the views attributed to Jesus than do the Christians that condemn them. In that sense, I think your biblical verse is much more applicable to that group.
My point is, that I firmly believe it doesn't matter who or how you worship, what you call yourself, or what you believe. None of us will ever know until the end whether there is a god or a Jesus, or any of the myriad of other dieties worshipped throughout the world. And if it turns out there is one, how you lived your life will likely be much more important than what you called yourself.
"This is my blood, this is my body" What does "is" mean. Words are so flimsy.
That was my point entirely. Those who are screaming from the rooftops are people who are poor examples of what Christianity should be - yet they are always the fist examples drawn of what Christianity is by those outside the Christian faith. My secular examples were made to display that just because there are poor examples who claim to speak for the entire group doesn't mean that they do; nor does it mean the group should be held accountable for the actions of these few loose cannons. The other side of my example is also true - just because their actions are wrong doesn't make their message incorrect.
James & others,
Yes, there are differences. Yes, there are denominations and other religions. But those have nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with human arrogance, human ignorance and human willfulness. he creation of differences and discord is the tool of satan to drive a wegde between believers so that we will have problems, and people will be driven away from the truth by the chaos and issues that they cause. That's why Jesus told us "Blessed are the peacemakers..."
I am sorry to hear of your family member dying. Know that I am praying for your family's peace at this time of sorrow.
Creation was perhaps a poor choice of words. Let's say the generation of discord and differences is one of satan's favorite tools, rather than creation. Because it's not truly created but actually stirred up.
It is the Belief of the People in it that makes the Thing Powerful... Not necessarily the reality of the Thing...
No one is trying to throw Christians to the lions nor advocating it...
If a fellow named "Bob"the Plumber said those things you quoted as 'verse' in his plumber's manual on page 50, etc., would they not be as valid as if the fellow you quoted had said them? Or is that the point? They had to have been said by a "God" for them to have had weight and be taken seriously...? That is how humans behave at times... So the Jesus/Joshua fellow had to have been God-Related to have implied the emPHAsis to those words? But that comes off as Pagan... even though it is explained-off as Not Pagan within the Faith... But, it really still reflects heavily of Paganism... Which is indeed understandable given the times and events and influencing powers of the region at that time... The Torah includes many of the cross-over Pagan traditions and elements of the early Jewish development... It's a natural thing...
The problems is when the words, which provide an opportunity for enlightenment and learning becomes The Word ... (implying an almost exclusivity to those words) ...
Regarding Julius Caesar... any historical attempt to cast him as a "God" whether he called himself one or not, would be and is dismissed. So your example relating to the Jesus/Joshua fellow is somewhat lost here. The European Kings who claimed direct connection to God or even God incarnation itself, are dismissed in retrospective (if not by most folks at that given time as well). That the Jesus/Joshua fellow never existed may be different argument altogether... but I would consider that claimed divinity of any individual would be open to speculation and dismissal... The Emperor of Japan Was Divine after all, and that was just last century. I'm not sure most Christians would agree with his claim...
At what point in the telling or writing of the story did Jesus/Joshua become Divine?
At what point did "Jesus" become used as the 'magical' word that Peter refers to in his piece?
The word gains its power through the belief of the people and the meaning those people assign to that word...
At what point was that meaning assigned???
Regardless of any number of copies of accounts of the fellows existence... I don't think that moment is fully known or at all clear... But then... that's a matter of Faith isn't it?
The difficulty in discussing issues with those who have vested interest based on Faith is that they will see what ever they want in order to explain their faith... It is understood that the words of 'unbelievers' are especially easy to dismiss... No?
I doubt seriously whether even even any of the Caesars themselves believed they were gods, but used that as a point of reference.
I have seen the power of prayer and of healing in the name Jesus. I have seen the name Jesus used to calm an untenable situation. I have personally seen peopel get up off of their death beds when doctors have pronounced them uncurable only to live - and to live full, rich healthy lives, because of faith in the power behind the name Jesus. This is not an anomaly. I have seen it myself repeatedly - my mother-in-law, my friend's father, a close friend of the family, a 4-year-old boy with cancer. These are all living, breathing miracles that I have personally witnessed. There are too many to be coincidence.
I'm not saying that just saying the name "Jesus" will cure everyone, and I'm not saying I understand it. But I know that there's something there. And the only way the name "Jesus" in whatever langauge used would have any power at all is if it refers to the the person we are discussing and if his claims of divinity were true. To wit, there is some evidence that points to the resurrection actually occurring. However, it is not enough and will never be enough to be empirical. It will always have to be either accepted on faith or not accepted. From my position of faith but as one who was formerly skeptical, I am certain that is by design. By the same toke, there i enough evidence that one cannot say empirically that it what I believe by faith is proven untrue. And that is my point. Many make claims of empirical proof against Christ but those claims are unfounded. Both sides must say that we believe our side to be true , but that nether side can prove anything - if we are honest.
That in itself is not entirely necessarily accurate and remains a matter of faith... The strength of the people themselves believing it and their belief is the Actor... Faith healing is not restricted to the imagery/concept of "Jesus" neither is the power of groups of humans praying restricted to one religion or set of imagery/concepts ...
The common denominator is the power and strength of human belief... regardless of the prayed to divinity... The love and power for any given divinity, concept, or belief is a powerful thing... You personally see the Prayer through "Jesus" as the vehicle to that power because that is the vehicle your are riding on... Religions that tend to have "tinted windows" on that vehicle tend to be annoying to others that have a concept of spirituality as well... You will be stuck in seeing "Jesus" as divine because it is a linchpin of your Faith, and as I said, you will use your Faith to explain what you need it to for as long as you can...
The point about Caesar was that the reality of his existence is not generally dismissed...his claim to divinity or any other historical figure's similar claim are however generally dismissed (even if given the note of whether they themselves believed it or their population did at the time)...
Peace...
Whether the recipient of the prayer knows or not. Because in one case, the person didn't even know that others were praying for him. So how is that explained? Doctors had no cure for him, he had no faith that he would ever overcome his illness, he knew nothing of the prayers for him, and yet he was cured of an incurable disease and lived another two years before he died of natural causes (old age) because of the prayers of the faithful. Based on my experience, I believe faith had to be the source because I can find no other rational explanation. Perhaps my view is tinted, perhaps not.
As far as Caesar is concerned, my point was that people question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, His actions, His miracles, His death and especially His resurrection. While I will allow that the latter is given to faith, my point was that there is much more secular evidence of the existence of this man Jesus of Nazareth than there is Caesar. Yet we collectively are much more willing to accept Caesar as factual than Jesus. I believe it says much about an attitude against faith that pervades this culture when using the same standards of evidence Caesar is accepted and Jesus is questioned while the written body of secular evidence for Jesus by far outweighs the evidence for Caesar.
And I offer peace to you as well. These discussions without rancor are good for instruction and learning is a positive thing...
No one here in this discussion had questioned the existence of the man "Jesus/Yeshua/etc." ... as I had said, that is a matter of a different argument...
I do question your numbers cited regarding the historical existence of your examples Caesar vs the Jesus/Yeshuaw/Joshua fellow, but that is not worth getting into... I'm not sure that mentioning "never mind all the bibles in existence" is really even something to bring up whether using it as a point or disregarding since the same can be said for all the text books and history books mentioning Caesar... That is just sort of mixing things up there...
The stories that do exist regarding the "Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus" fellow differ greatly themselves and in fact is difficult to say when which part of any of the stories were written: in retrospect or on-site... There are stories left out altogether that were not claimed as official at some point, but who is it that made those choices... That is a matter of faith as to the discretion they used in their choices...
My point was that the people who chose, used, and wrote those stories where those that were Pre-Disposed to the Pagan mind set of human divine incarnations, therefor it is that name "Jesus" which became the traditional Moniker of the fellow in the story, rather than the actual name that he was known by in his life...
Caesar had statues, engravings, monuments, etc. He also had a career as a general and affected change within in his life that has multiple step digressions from himself in the Roman world and its surroundings... I'm not arguing the "existence - nonexistence" issue you seem to have raised... However, when historians quote Caesar, they do so with the understanding that is is very difficult if not impossible to absolutely verify what he said. Something like "The die is Cast" is taken with an understanding that it might have been a historian thinking that that was a Pithy thing for a General such as Caesar to have said...
The trouble with the stories regarding "Jesus" as you see it is that words become THE WORD... and enlightenment and illumination and potential of meditation and learning become THE WAY in an exclusive sense ... and that in fact is counter productive in the big picture... it gets sticky with the whole God human incarnation thing... Those riding the "Jesus" vehicle for their faith often tend to have those tinted windows I mentioned Seeing only Their Way and Their Word and are stuck in time and perspective...
Regarding examples of Human God incarnations... as I said... I don't think most Christians really accept that the Japanese Emperor was in fact Divine...
I do not reject the idea of a Divine Human interaction... In fact I'd say that the Divine is with in all humans, all life, all existence... It is within humans, as we understand it, to choose to see that Divinity in whatever visual or linguistic imagery and concepts that might be
The imagery of God as an individual in human form, rises greatly from regions with more recent pagan traditions...
We won't get into the sources of the books on Caesar, although I may revisit that for a different article.
From there, since I do have a more clear understanding, while I see some validity to your words faith based on my experience has turned me from my former views to belief. Given that, I believe that any further discussion of this matter would result in the repetition of the same points already raised - probably reworded, but in the same formate nevertheless. As we have both said, we will agree to disagree. Peace and blessings to to you...
Shalom...
"deliverer."
Peter means "rock" or "stone."
The Bible is a lovely book of poetry!
~Annie