Do you believe that Jesus is the Word?

[Kenny]

Really not following you here, but I do know that in Matthew 27:45-46 one reads.

45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

​

Are you claiming this loud cry was a rhetorical question?

.

I'm not sure why you aren't following... didn't he say what God said he was going to say?

 

[Skwim]

I'm not sure why you aren't following... didn't he say what God said he was going to say?

But why would god bother saying this unless he didn't know? God knew the answer to the question, and if Jesus knew as well---as has been asserted (after all, Jesus is the Word)---then why did Jesus bother to utter them? Either

1) Jesus is a fool, asking a question to which he already knows the answer, which does go along with the notion that he knows the thoughts of god

2) Jesus seriously doesn't know why he's been forsaken, which doesn't go along with the notion that he knows the thoughts of god​

.

 

[Kenny]

But why would god bother saying this unless he didn't know? God knew the answer to the question, and if Jesus knew as well---as has been asserted (after all, Jesus is the Word)---then why did Jesus bother to utter them? Either

1) Jesus is a fool, asking a question to which he already knows the answer, which does go along with the notion that he knows the thoughts of god

2) Jesus seriously doesn't know why he's been forsaken, which doesn't go along with the notion that he knows the thoughts of god​

.

Hmmm.... are we changing the subject? "Why" will be answered when you speak to God. I was just showing you that God did know before hand and that Jesus is the expressed thought of God. (Demonstrated).

If you would like to open a theologcial thread, please fill free.

 

[Skwim]

Hmmm.... are we changing the subject? "Why" will be answered when you speak to God. I was just showing you that God did know before hand and that Jesus is the expressed thought of God. (Demonstrated).

If you would like to open a theologcial thread, please fill free.

We're good as is.

.

 

[Desert Snake]

It comes from scholars who know old languages and cultures. What does yours come from?
The NT is written in koine Greek and the name of Jesus is Ἰησοῦς. It's derived from Aramaic Yeshua, so scholars say, which is derived from Yehoshua (in English, Joshua).

That's nice, but what you presented is a theory.

As I noted in another thread, I like
Eesu, Yesu, and Jesus.

If
People want to use Yeshua, it's fine too. As it refers to the same person, religiously.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is a question of interest to Christians. If you don't believe the claims of Christianity as matching reality (from history, science, archaeology, philosophy), the question has no meaning.

I read things outside of my religious belief. You are merely inferring that you don't. Not really my problem.

 

[blü 2]

That's nice, but what you presented is a theory.

If so, it's far and away the best-founded theory we have on the subject.

As I noted in another thread, I like
Eesu, Yesu, and Jesus.

Iesu, pronounced 'Yesu', is the vocative form of Iesus (Jesus) in Latin, found in older English in such expressions as the exclamation 'Sweet Jesu!'). The net tells me that Yesu is also the form of the name Jesus in Cornish and in various Asian and African languages. Iesus is the Latin transliteration of Greek Iesous, which itself transliterates (and adds a Greek nominative case ending 's') the Aramaic Yeshua, a shortened form of Hebrew Yehoshua (English Joshua) meaning 'God is salvation / deliverance'.

As a matter of interest, where do you get Eesu from? And how do you distinguish 'Yesu' from the mainstream Jesus etymology?

 

[Desert Snake]

If so, it's far and away the best-founded theory we have on the subject.

It's still just a theory.

Iesu, pronounced 'Yesu', is the vocative form of Iesus (Jesus) in Latin, found in older English in such expressions as the exclamation 'Sweet Jesu!'). The net tells me that Yesu is also the form of the name Jesus in Cornish and in various Asian and African languages. Iesus is the Latin transliteration of Greek Iesous, which itself transliterates (and adds a Greek nominative case ending 's') the Aramaic Yeshua, a shortened form of Hebrew Yehoshua (English Joshua) meaning 'God is salvation / deliverance'.

As a matter of interest, where do you get Eesu from? And how do you distinguish 'Yesu' from the mainstream Jesus etymology?

You're presenting the theory as evidence for the theory.

The derivative itself is a theory, not evidence for the proposed derivative.

Aramaic christianity does use Yeshua, this itself does not prove, that Jesus, or Iesou/Iesous, is a derivative of Yeshua, Yoheshuah, or Joshua.

Mainstream theory does not refute other beliefs, or surmised ideas, concerning this.
You also get into a problem with considering one 'source', or original notation of Jesus's name. Was the name first written in Greek, so forth.

 

[osgart]

It is incredible how one can read that which was written in the 1st and 2nd century and then you say it is from a 4th AD doctrinal dispute?

That makes no sense (is a nonsnese).

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh.

That is as black and white as you can make it.

That black and white makes Jesus God according to the Bible

 

[Desert Snake]

As a matter of interest, where do you get Eesu from? And how do you distinguish 'Yesu' from the mainstream Jesus etymology?

You don't have to. That would be like providing evidence that a theory without direct evidence, is wrong.

Yoheshuah, and , Yeshua, if from Joshua, is not directly inferred by Iesou/Iesous

 

[Quagmire]

I believe that Jesus is a word.

 

[blü 2]

It's still just a theory.

With a remarkably firm basis.

You don't have to. That would be like providing evidence that a theory without direct evidence, is wrong.

So it's a whim of yours. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yoheshuah, and , Yeshua, if from Joshua, is not directly inferred by Iesou/Iesous

When you turn Aramaic Yeshua into Greek, you have to make some adjustments ─ you write the Y as an I; the sh sound doesn't exist in Greek, so sh becomes s ; you write the u as a digraph, ou, because in Greek the letter u on its own was pronounced ü; and you put an s on the end so that you can employ the case endings used in Greek grammar. You end up with Ἰησοῦς / Iesous.

To put that into Latin, you don't need the digraph, so it becomes Iesus, pronounced Yesus (with the u as in 'put'). In northern France in the 11th century the semivowel y sound began to be pronounced zh, so that Iesus began to be pronounced zhehses, and when it crossed the Channel, dzhehsus, later dzheesus, the way we say it now. (The letter J was originally an alternative form of i; the use of J to represent only the zh / dzh sound begins in Holland in the latter 17th cent and is followed in the next few decades in France and England.)

All of which goes to show that Yeshua indeed leads directly forward to Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

With a remarkably firm basis.

No, it's quite theoretical.

So it's a whim of yours. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, it's direct inference, Iesou/Iesou, Eesu, Yesu, Jesus, for example, are all directly inferenced of each other. Yoheshuah, Joshua, and Yeshua, if from Yoheshuah, or Joshua, are not directly inferenced by Iesou/Iesous.

When you turn Aramaic Yeshua into Greek, you have to make some adjustments ─ you write the Y as an I; the sh sound doesn't exist in Greek, so sh becomes s ; you write the u as a digraph, ou, because in Greek the letter u on its own was pronounced ü; and you put an s on the end so that you can employ the case endings used in Greek grammar. You end up with Ἰησοῦς / Iesous.

To put that into Latin, you don't need the digraph, so it becomes Iesus, pronounced Yesus (with the u as in 'put'). In northern France in the 11th century the semivowel y sound began to be pronounced zh, so that Iesus began to be pronounced zhehses, and when it crossed the Channel, dzhehsus, later dzheesus, the way we say it now. (The letter J was originally an alternative form of i; the use of J to represent only the zh / dzh sound begins in Holland in the latter 17th cent and is followed in the next few decades in France and England.)

You didn't present the theory you are claiming to believe, in a manner that explains your theory. Ie, you don't even know what is being discussed, contextually.

All of which goes to show that Yeshua indeed leads directly forward to Jesus.

No, it actually doesn't

 

[blü 2]

Here is how speculative the theory regarding Jesus's name, being from Yoheshuah, Joshua, and Yeshua, actually is.
• Presumes that Iesou/Iesous, is from Yeshua. No direct inference for this, THEORY.
• Presumes that *Yeshu was the name used for Jesus. No direct evidence of this, THEORY. Note that connected to this theory, is another theory that presumes that if Yeshu was used as a name for Jesus, it is a variation of Yeshua/Joshua, and not a sound variation of Iesou/Iesous, greek name rendition.
• Presumes that Iesou/Iesous has a incorrect sound variance produced from a tranliteration of Yeshu/Yeshua . A THEORY based upon a THEORY, from a THEORY.

None of the above. Just the way things were transliterated back then, a topic well studied by scholars.

Whereas your idea is a whim. Nothing wrong with whims, the only fault is not owning up to them.

The name of Jesus meaning generally, JHVH with us, JHVH who is with us, so forth.

You claim that Ἰησοῦς means 'Yahweh with us' in Greek.

Demonstrate that etymology, please.

Or if it's just a whim, please say so clearly.

PS You still haven't explained your view of the Trinity to me. What did you mean by 'person'? How do you say the Trinity works?

And you still haven't said where you got Eesu from. Another whim?

 

[Desert Snake]

None of the above. Just the way things were transliterated back then, a topic well studied by scholars.

You aren't even aware of the argument that you're trying to present.

Whereas your idea is a whim. Nothing wrong with whims, the only fault is not owning up to them.

...

You claim that Ἰησοῦς means 'Yahweh with us' in Greek.

No, I didn't claim that. The Greek is a transliteration.

Demonstrate that etymology, please.

Or if it's just a whim, please say so clearly.

No, I'm done arguing this with you. Believe whatever you want.

 

[blü 2]

You aren't even aware of the argument that you're trying to present.

So your view is a whim. Why don't you just say so?

No, I'm done arguing this with you. Believe whatever you want.

So all your views are whims. Again, why not just say so?

 

[Desert Snake]

So your view is a whim. Why don't you just say so?

So all your views are whims. Again, why not just say so?

We have Iesou/Iesous, and corresponding names. In the theory that you don't understand, but are presenting, it theorizes that Iesou/Iesous', is from 'Yeshua', from Joshua/Yoheshua. The methodology uses non direct inference, and presents a literally different name, from the Greek Iesou/Iesous. There is no actual inference that Iesou/Iesous, is from Yeshua, Joshua, Yoheshua, in the manner that you presented.

You didn't even present the theory that you're arguing, correctly, as you went from Yeshua to Iesou/Iesous, which isn't correct, then presented ideas concerning how Iesou/Iesous, went to Jesus, which isn't even part of that theory, as that morphology is understood, and directly inferred.



Whereas, Iesou/Iesous, and names that I use, for example, Eesu, Yesu, Jesus , Yeshu, and some others, are understandable direct variance of the same name, without any theory as to a 'different', name, or from another name.

 

[blü 2]

you went from Yeshua to Iesou/Iesous, which isn't correct

Only according to you.

Whereas, Iesou/Iesous, and names that I use, for example, Eesu, Yesu, Jesus , Yeshu, and some others, are understandable direct variance of the same name, without any theory as to a 'different', name, or from another name.

And then there's that meaning you ascribed to the name, for which you've offered no backing (but whims are like that).

And the name Eesu likewise. Another whim?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain the Trinity to me.

 

[Altfish]

According to John Travolta and Olivia Newton John

GREASE is the word...

I saw my problems and I'll see the light
We got a lovin' thing, we gotta feed it right
There ain't no danger we can go too far
We start believin' now that we can be who we are, grease is the word
They think our love is just a growin' pain
Why don't they understand? it's just a cryin' shame
Their lips are lyin', only real is real
We stop the fight right now, we got to be what we feel, grease is the word
It's got a groove, it's got a meaning
Grease is the time, is the place, is the motion
Grease is the way we are feeling
We take the pressure, and we throw away conventionality, belongs to yesterday
There is a chance that we can make it so far
We start believin' now that we can be who we are, grease is the word
It's got a groove, it's got a meaning
Grease is…
It's got a groove, it's got a meaning
Grease is the time, is the place, is the motion
Grease is the way we are feeling
This is a life of illusion, a life of control
Mixed with confusion, what're we doin' here?
We take the pressure, and we throw away conventionality, belongs to yesterday
There is a chance that we can make it so far
We start believin' now that we can be who we are, grease is the word
It's got a groove, it's got a meaning
Grease is the time, is the place, is the motion
Grease is the way we are feeling
It's got a groove, it's got a meaning
Grease is the time, is the place, is the motion
Grease is the way we are feeling

 

[Sleeppy]

Only according to you.

And then there's that meaning you ascribed to the name, for which you've offered no backing (but whims are like that).

And the name Eesu likewise. Another whim?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain the Trinity to me.

You're arguing with someone who will never admit wrong. That hasn't become evident?