Jesus and Joshua.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

outhouse wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
I made a claim about the etymology of the Greek Ἰησοῦς. That claim was that Ἰησοῦς was a transliteration of the Hebrew יְהוֹשׁוּעַ. Do you still dispute that this is the most likely etymological source of Ἰησοῦς?
Not really disputing the pre Christian transliterations.

My only point is that from the Christian origin, Koine speaking residents of The diaspora used a Koine religious text and applied to it, an Aramaic name.
So the following was not correct, right?
outhouse wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote: For example, going from Yeshua straight to Jesus would mean that somebody took a Hebrew name and turned the yod into a J in the way one Anglicizes Hebrew words while simultaneously adding, for no apparent reason, a Latin case ending (-us). Why would someone do that when going straight from Hebrew to English? No, the Latin case ending obviously got there when it rendered the Greek ending (-οῦς).
It went Aramaic - Koine for the Etymology
Subject: Jesus and Joshua.

You were not actually writing about the etymology at all.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by John2 »

Steven Avery wrote:
Thanks John, for this, and linking to my post on the b-hebrew forum.

I actually think there are elements there that may need tweaking, that is quite an early article. And also now Nehemia is doing much more with the Masoretic Text manuscripts. Plus he explains how yahweh is not just wrong, it is on the wrong side of the spiritual street, jupiter. That is only the last couple of years.

At least there is enough there that some might be interested in studying and understanding.
I noticed Gordon's Jupiter argument through you recently on the forum and I'm still getting acquainted with it but it seems very interesting so far.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by Steven Avery »

John2 wrote:I noticed Gordon's Jupiter argument through you recently on the forum and I'm still getting acquainted with it but it seems very interesting so far.

Yep, the only difficulty is that it is sort of hidden here and there. The best talk is behind a pay walll, but I think you can just make a super-modest donation.

I placed a little study and review material here:

yahweh==jove and is a pagan devil
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95

Steven
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by davidbrainerd »

Steven Avery wrote:
John2 wrote:I noticed Gordon's Jupiter argument through you recently on the forum and I'm still getting acquainted with it but it seems very interesting so far.

Yep, the only difficulty is that it is sort of hidden here and there. The best talk is behind a pay walll, but I think you can just make a super-modest donation.

I placed a little study and review material here:

yahweh==jove and is a pagan devil
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95

Steven
So are you saying Jupiter = Jew pater?
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by Steven Avery »

Jupiter = Jove-Pater
Jupiter = yahweh-father

Simply because jove is yahweh.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by davidbrainerd »

Steven Avery wrote:Jupiter = Jove-Pater
Jupiter = yahweh-father

Simply because jove is yahweh.
It makes a good Gnostic argument.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by Steven Avery »

davidbrainerd wrote:
Steven Avery wrote:Jupiter = Jove-Pater
Jupiter = yahweh-father
Simply because jove is yahweh.
It makes a good Gnostic argument.

The worship of yahweh is in fact quite gnostic, even with a mask or veneer of Christianity.

I've been in prayer rooms where yahweh was being fervently worshiped (toda, yahweh, ohh, yahweh). It is not spiritually pretty.
I've heard the superb song "Days of Elijah (No God but Jehovah)" mangled with the devil entity.

This, however, has nothing to do with the proper representations, including:

Jehovah (Yehovah)
JHVH (YHVH)
LORD

Yahweh was snuck in by Gesenius precisely because it was related to Jupiter, the devil entity.
Modern seminarian Christians have a propensity to be duped by faux scholarship.

The vocalization yahweh has nothing to do with the Masoretic Text, the God of Israel, or Bible faith.

Psalm 83:18 (AV)
That men may know that thou,
whose name alone is JEHOVAH,
art the most high over all the earth.

Steven
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by davidbrainerd »

Steven Avery wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:
Steven Avery wrote:Jupiter = Jove-Pater
Jupiter = yahweh-father
Simply because jove is yahweh.
It makes a good Gnostic argument.

The worship of yahweh is in fact quite gnostic, even with a mask or veneer of Christianity.

I've been in prayer rooms where yahweh was being fervently worshiped (toda, yahweh, ohh, yahweh). It is not spiritually pretty.
I've heard the superb song "Days of Elijah (No God but Jehovah)" mangled with the devil entity.
I think what you're complaining about there is more the feminine sound of the name and the feminine orientation of the worship. I wouldn't call that Gnosticism. Its no different from the "Jesus is my boyfriend" trend in contemporary Christian music.

(One of my favorite church songs is Hallelujah Praise Jehovah by William J Kirkpatrick, which is essentiallly Psalm 148 set to music. I get the disgust with contemporary church music.)
Steven Avery wrote: This, however, has nothing to do with the proper representations, including:

Jehovah (Yehovah)
JHVH (YHVH)
LORD

Yahweh was snuck in by Gesenius precisely because it was related to Jupiter, the devil entity.
Modern seminarian Christians have a propensity to be duped by faux scholarship.

The vocalization yahweh has nothing to do with the Masoretic Text, the God of Israel, or Bible faith.
Certainly the vocalization in the massoretic text is not Yahweh. And the whole "no J in Hebrew" argument is merely Ashkenazi pronunciation supremacism against other Hebrew dialects (i.e. no J because Germans pronounce J as Y, no other reason). "However," the argument goes, "the vowel points are late so we can't prove that's the right pronunciation."

I've seen arguments where Yahwists are arguing Jehovah is wrong because it looks or sounds like Jove (in English), although its a stretch, since you'd have to add an ah and final h to turn Jove into Jahoveh.

Jehovah certainly sounds more manly, more befitting of the warlike OT God. But perhaps Yahweh shows his inconsistent character, so inconsistent as to have a feminine name that sounds the same as another capricious and cruel deity. My point in fact in saying its a good Gnostic argument was the unification of the two "cruel capricious" deities, that of the Jews and that of Rome, into one, with one name, which would explain why the God of the Jews seemingly transfered his allegiance to Rome and the Roman Catholic church: he was whoring around on his wife all along. He was cheating on Israel with Rome and they didn't even know it until he brought the Roman armies in to take back his wedding ring. That's the Gnostic argument I meant, that "capricious Yahweh turns out to just be capricious Jove, so lets worship the Better God instead."

Its made an altogether better argument by Paul in Acts quoting a pagan poet as a prophet, quoting a poem of Jove being the father of all humanity and applying it to the Catholic god, which demonstrates that Catholics did see their god as the same as Jove.

So I'm just wondering out loud if any evidence of Gnostics specifically making this connection survives.
Steven Avery wrote: Psalm 83:18 (AV)
That men may know that thou,
whose name alone is JEHOVAH,
art the most high over all the earth.

Steven
The KJV was good enough for Marcion, so its good enough for me.

(I know a joke's not as funny when explained, but for the benefit of Secret Alias who will take that literally, this saying normally says Paul. Also the KJV still has some Western non-interpolations sometimes considered associated with Marcion that modern translation have expunged, like Luke 9:55 "....Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.")
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by Steven Avery »

davidbrainerd wrote:I think what you're complaining about there is more the feminine sound of the name and the feminine orientation of the worship. I wouldn't call that Gnosticism. Its no different from the "Jesus is my boyfriend" trend in contemporary Christian music. (One of my favorite church songs is Hallelujah Praise Jehovah by William J Kirkpatrick, which is essentiallly Psalm 148 set to music. I get the disgust with contemporary church music.)
No, I was talking about overt worship of yahweh. And in supposedly Christian fellowships, not just the sacred name movement. The emphasis is on "Yahweh-worship".
Steven Avery wrote:Certainly the vocalization in the massoretic text is not Yahweh. And the whole "no J in Hebrew" argument is merely Ashkenazi pronunciation supremacism against other Hebrew dialects (i.e. no J because Germans pronounce J as Y, no other reason). "However," the argument goes, "the vowel points are late so we can't prove that's the right pronunciation."

Nehemia Gordon does a good job of answering that argument. e.g. He points out that Hebrew was continuous in Tiberias, where the Masoretic vowel points were instituted. He also carefully goes over the Masoretic Text evidences.
Steven Avery wrote:I've seen arguments where Yahwists are arguing Jehovah is wrong because it looks or sounds like Jove (in English), although its a stretch, since you'd have to add an ah and final h to turn Jove into Jahoveh.

Jove is not vocalized as "jovial". The Latin Jove is pronounced as yahweh (or a range from yowe to yahweh.) There is no relation to Jehovah. And it is the identity of yahweh and jove (jupiter) here that is the issue. The fact that weak arguments are made is not really our concern.

Steven
chazpres
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Jesus and Joshua.

Post by chazpres »

[quote="Ben C. Smith"]The Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2 seems to utilize this etymology, since the "name above every name" ought to be Yahweh (the tetragrammaton), yet it comes out as Jesus:

Philippians 2.5-11: 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant [μορφὴν δούλου], and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross [θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ]. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Not to be a wet blanket on an otherwise fascinating topic, but the "name above every name" in this passage is not referring to the name "Jesus" but "Lord" (kurios) per verse 11. The context as a whole is not about "becoming salvation" per the Jesus/Joshua name etymology but humility and the (re)bestowal of the name/title upon him Kurios (Adonai) = "equality with God." Paul often uses Kurios almost as a personal name for Christ making it unclear at times whether he's referring to Jesus or God (e.g. "brother of the Lord"), hence it's the highest name.
Post Reply