Jesus

[angellous_evangellous]

Sounds like you are asking me to use my own knowledge to help you prove that you are very knowledgeable.

Perpahs you feel the need to impress others, to convince them, or to muscle them into agreeing with you. I have no issue with that, but maybe you should learn to spell a word before you try to impress anyone with that word.

haha, no.

I have much higher standards than that. :biglaugh:

Spelling aside, anyone with less than half a brain knew damn well what I meant - considering the context of the thread - so I'm not concerned about it in the slightest.

 

[TalAbrams]

Wow! What a great exchange.
It took a great deal of courage or bluff & bravado to issue a language challenge to someone called, "angellous_evangellous."
How could he not have known the answer would be Greek?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wow! What a great exchange.
It took a great deal of courage or bluff & bravado to issue a language challenge to someone called, "angellous_evangellous."
How could he not have known the answer would be Greek?

You know - I actually had to think about that one for a second. I'd be impressed with Greek, but with this guy German, French, Spanish, or Latin might be just as good.

I should think that Greek would be the weakest on Google translate. :biglaugh:

But he's already proven he doesn't know any of the ancient languages he's talking about. What a shame.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The funny thing is -- I don't think that scholarly books even address the errors that "Godwilling" is indulging in. These kind of questions are so basic that they aren't going to receive attention. The problems would be solved with some language training and wide reading in history under the direction of a very patient tutor.

 

[fallingblood]

The US is also a Spanish speaking country and most of the Southern US, as well as Chicago, New York, New Jersey and many other cities have large populations of Spanish speaking US citizens. There are many Spanish speaking radio and television stations in the US, and most of the southern states of the US have a myriad of Spanish names. Unless of course you believe that San Diego, San Juan, San Francisco, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Reno, and others are Aramaic names that came to English through Greek.

Wikipedia is not much more than a forum, and citing it as proof of any thing simply demonstrates the level of research knowledge and skills of the person making the citation.

Wikipedia, for general information, is just fine. More so, why are you arguing such a trite point? The United States is an English speaking country. Over 90% of the population speaks English. Sure, some also speak Spanish; however, that does not make it incorrect to state that the United states is an English speaking country.

Again, you are making a big deal about a trite point. The United States is an English speaking country. Over 90% of the population speak English. Many are also bilingual, but that doesn't change the fact that most speak English. The de facto national language is English.

As for England being a country, look it up in Webster's dictionary. Look at any Encyclopedia, it will say that England is a country (as long as the Encyclopedia is up to date).

You appear to continue to deny the existence of many US and some UK citizens that have the name Jesus.

I don't deny any such thing. I explained it why some do. Those who do are primarily not native to those areas (or at least their parents aren't). They are of Spanish origin, who keep some cultural aspects of Spain (or Mexico).

And were you not the one who said that for English speaking people, Jesus was not a common name? Yes you were. I was explaining why that was.

It appears that rather than say, “I do not like it when people disagree with me, you are saying, “you seem to be unable…”.

Who are “these people” to whom you refer for whom there is one Jesus? Is this another intentional ethnocentric, racist statement? The US is composed of most races and types of people in the World, not just English and not just followers of Jesus. In the US and in the UK, there are African Americans; there are people of Irish descent, Scottish, Native, Spanish from Spain, Portuguese, and other Europeans, South Americans, Asians, and every other ethnicity. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and the largest minority-atheists.

I say you seem to be unable to take my words in context, as you haven't done so. You have, on a number of occasions, taken what I said out of context. You have even taken part of a sentence that I wrote, and claimed it was saying something that I never said (which you would have known if you didn't take my sentence out of context). I'm just stating an observation which I have backed up.

And you did it again in the above quote. Instead of actually reading what I said in context, you make the implication that I'm being racist. That simply is low on your part, and dishonest. Simply, it is unethical and a bottom feeder tactic.

These people who I refer to are English speaking people in English speaking countries. They are people who obviously grew up in these countries, and follow the cultural norms of these countries (which is obvious if you take what I say in context). The cultural norm of the United States (I'm not talking about new immigrants here, as they come from other cultures, and do not follow necessarily follow the cultural norms of the United States) is not to name their kids Jesus as for them, there is only one Jesus. It is a matter or respect in that specific culture.

Really, I should not have to spell all of this out.

Perhaps you are used to bullying people into appearing to agree with you.

Again, a ridiculous comment based on something I said that you took out of context. I'm not bullying you. I'm simply stating that I should not have to break everything down so that you won't misrepresent what I state. In a logical and mature debate, that is not something that is necessary to do.

There is no English passport, English citizenship, any other form of English identification, and there are no countries inside other countries. There are United Kingdom passports, there is United Kingdom citizenship, United Kingdom membership to the United Nations, United Kingdom membership to NATO, and other memberships reserved for sovereign countries. Citing Wikipedia is like citing this forum.

Citing Wikipedia is a great way to give general information about a topic. Citing this forum also wouldn't be bad if one were citing a reliable source (there are very reliable people here on different topics. They are reliable as they have proven themselves, and/or they have advanced degrees (or work) on a particular subject). That is besides the point. If you look England up in any up to date Encyclopedia, or even dictionary for that matter, they label it as a country. There is no reason that I should have to argue such a point.

Here are a couple more sources though:
[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Number10.gov.uk » countries within a country
Geography - UK countries
That really should be good enough.

 

[fallingblood]

Is this another intentional, ethnocentric, racist comment?
All Americans who are not Native Americans are emigrants or emigrant descent. I know Spanish speaking Americans who can trace their roots to Geronimo’s band, and most of the Southern US spoke Spanish before English. There are many US citizens born in the US whose first language is Spanish. Have you ever been in Miami, Puerto Rico, Los Angeles, and other places where Spanish is spoken in large percentages?

Why do you continue to insinuate that I'm racist? That simply is low, and shows very negatively upon you. More so, attacking me doesn't make your point stronger. It takes away from it.

Yes, not all Americans are Native Americans. However, new immigrants have different cultural backgrounds. That is what I was referring to. Who in the United States name their kids Jesus? People who have either a Spanish or Mexican background. Thus, their cultural background is different. That is what I have been saying. The United States has various social norms. One of those is not to name their kids Jesus out of respect (or even confusion). Immigrants (and it should have been obvious that I was talking about new immigrants) still hold onto their cultural backgrounds (more so than immigrants who moved here a hundred years ago). Thus, their culture influences name choice. That is what I have been explaining.

Just because some people do not have good command of the English language does not mean that goat offspring is a respectful way to refer to children.

Yes, context is very important. That is one of the ways in which I can assess the knowledge, cognitive abilities, and other skills of the person with whom I am communicating-I put it in context.

You need a dictionary. Kid does not solely refer to goats. For someone who insinuates that you have a good command of the English language, you certainly don't show it.

As for you putting things in context, you don't. I've shown over and over again where you take what I say out of context. The fact that you would claim that I'm calling children the offspring of goats, clearly show that.

Again, pick up a dictionary, and look up the word kid. The first entry, in most cases, states that kid is an informal term for children (when using the definition of noun). Thus, I'm not being disrespectful by using the term kid. I'm using an informal term; however, we are in an informal forum. Thus, you have no point and are just making ignorant statements.

When you contradict yourself saying, “The term Jesus did not come from the Hebrew. Yes, Yeshua was Hebrew (or Aramaic)” did you mean to say that it did not come from Hebrew, but from Hebrew?
When you say, “Hebrew (or Aramaic)” do you mean you do not know which or that you equate the two?

There term Jesus is the English equivalent to the Greek transliteration). Jesus is not a Hebrew term. Yeshua is a Hebrew term, or Aramaic term. Now, I don't equate Hebrew with Aramaic. Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew, that was the common language of first century Palestinian Jews. I put Aramaic in parenthesis in order to show that Yeshua was probably more Aramaic, but since you have been using the term Hebrew, I wanted to also make sure you understood. Thus, I used the word Hebrew, as that is the word that has been being used. I simply qualified my statement by adding Aramaic.

There is no contradiction. You just need to take the time to read what I say instead of misconstruing it.

Since Hebrew and Aramaic are two different and distinct languages, I am wondering if you refer to the two as synonymous because of the custom of calling the OT, the Hebrew Aramaic Scriptures.

For someone who has just a grand command of the English language, you definitely don't show it. I never said that they were synonymous. More so, I have never called the OT the Hebrew Aramaic scriptures. I either called it the OT, or the Hebrew Scriptures (which even though a small part is written in Aramaic, it is perfectly write to call it the Hebrew scripture. Hebrew refers to more than just a language).

You might be interested in knowing that parts of the Torah are written in Aramaic and some in Hebrew and that there is no such thing as a Hebrew Aramaic language. That common mistake is made by people with enough knowledge to generate ideas and utter statements and not enough knowledge to assess the validity of their ideas and statements.

You might be interested to know that I'm currently going to college for religious studies. I have taken an introductory course in Hebrew, and I have taken several course on the Hebrew scripture.

What you are doing here is trying to attack my knowledge my making it seem like I said something I didn't. You assume I don't know anything about how the OT was written, even though we really haven't discussed that. Instead, you imply that I'm ignorant, and try to give me a lesson on something you have never shown much reliability on. And then you insult me by saying that I don't have enough knowledge to assess the validity of my ideas.

Basically, you made a ridiculous statement, have shown very little regards for being honest, and have shown yourself as someone who, if they can't actually argue a point, will insult and attack the messenger.

I am getting the impression that you might know less Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and perhaps any other language except some English than you are pretending to know.

What languages am I pretending to know? I speak English, that is clear. Why? Because I'm using English to write this. I have never stated that I know Aramaic, Greek, Latin, or any other language (besides Hebrew, which I have only stated that I took an introductory course, and I did that in this post). So you are making an ignorant comment based on something that I never said or implied.

Maybe instead of making ridiculous insults, taking what I say out of context, and misconstruing what I say (which includes making arguments about things I have never implied or stated), you might want to form a logical argument to defend your position.

 

[fallingblood]

The funny thing is -- I don't think that scholarly books even address the errors that "Godwilling" is indulging in. These kind of questions are so basic that they aren't going to receive attention. The problems would be solved with some language training and wide reading in history under the direction of a very patient tutor.

I don't know if any tutor would have enough patience. It would be a wonderful idea of a punishment to assign an unruly student to tutor him though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know if any tutor would have enough patience. It would be a wonderful idea of a punishment to assign an unruly student to tutor him though.

They'd call that poetic justice.

Our friend does display some knowledge, but the recall and application are more than a little sloppy.

It's like he read widely 20 years ago, misremembers everything, and refuses to correct himself.

The tail is most definately wagging the dog.

 

[Muffled]

According to the Greek Scriptures, or New Testament, Jesus was born in Bethlehem in a Jewish family. He was known by the name Issa which is short for Joshua as Bob is short for Robert.

The name Joshua is as Hebrew as Daniel and Josheph while Jesus is not. If his name was indeed Issa and, therefore, Joshua why call him Jesus which is simply the Spanish version of the Greek degeneration of the name Issa?

We call Him Jesus because that is the name used in most english translations. Perhaps for those translations to be perfect Joshua would be better but usage tends to dictate rather than what would be the rational translation.

Translations are degenerations. I don't consider English degenerate. I might consider Arabic as degenerate because it has so many absurd squiggles and leaves out verbs but I suppose that could be attributed to personal preference.

 

[Godwilling]

greek.

Αρχαία και σύγχρονη;

 

[Godwilling]

Wow! What a great exchange.
It took a great deal of courage or bluff & bravado to issue a language challenge to someone called, "angellous_evangellous."
How could he not have known the answer would be Greek?

That is a good give away. The other is his insistance on everything having a Greek origin.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is a good give away. The other is his insistance on everything having a Greek origin.

(Or just lying about what someone says)

When you want to abandon your topic to lie about someone else's views, you are simply wallowing in defeat. What a shame.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's just baffling to me that one can't accept that "Jesus" is an English transliteration of the Greek. Duh. Obvious. Stupidly elementary.

Yeshua is a transliteration from Hebrew.

Now, stay with me. Jesus is a transliteration from the Greek NT, which is written in Greek.

Yeshua is a transliteration of a Hebrew word from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Yeshua retains somewhat of a Hebrew mystique - it can also be Joshua, or mediated through the Greek - Jesus.

Not

rocket

science

 

[Godwilling]

Why do you continue to insinuate that I'm racist?
new immigrants have different cultural backgrounds. That is what I was referring to. Who in the United States name their kids Jesus? People who have either a Spanish or Mexican background. Thus, their cultural background is different. That is what I have been saying. The United States has various social norms. One of those is not to name their kids Jesus out of respect (or even confusion). Immigrants (and it should have been obvious that I was talking about new immigrants) still hold onto their cultural backgrounds (more so than immigrants who moved here a hundred years ago). Thus, their culture influences name choice. That is what I have been explaining.

I am not sure how this relates to the thread, but it gives me the impression that you feel the need to term immigrant to anyone who does not share your “cultural norms”.


It appears to me that you choose to ignore the fact that all of the Southern US spoke Spanish before English, that not only Spanish speaking Americans name their children with Spanish names. Madonna is not a Spanish immigrant and she named her daughter Lourdes-a Spanish and Portuguese name. Joaquin Miller was no Spaniard and he invented the “western novel” genre before your grandparents were born.


Your insistence on the point that people in the US and England do not use the name Jesus as a first name out of respect is baseless. That is true of many English speaking Christians, but some English speaking people have the name Jesus and they are not immigrants of Spain or Mexico, and they chose the name precisely honouring the son of their God, and some because they want and can.

Furthermore, the name Joshua is the English translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua, and there are thousands of people named Joshua around the World, most of them English speaking Christians. The name Jesus is really nothing more than a bad translation of Yeshua. Those are the facts. You have made a long and convoluted argument to deny the facts and make yourself appear to be an expert of sorts. I take it into context, and imagine who the statements are coming from.

Perhaps you feel the need to deny the authenticity of citizenship of others in order to feel secure about your own. Did your immigrant ancestors give you a more "authentic" brand of citizenship, or did you come recently from England and want to claim the US for yourself?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am not sure how this relates to the thread, but it gives me the impression that you feel the need to term immigrant to anyone who does not share your “cultural norms”.

It appears to me that you chose to ignore the fact that all of the Southern US spoke Spanish before English, that not only Spanish speaking Americans name their children with Spanish names. Madonna is not a Spanish immigrant and she named her daughter Lourdes-a Spanish and Portuguese name. Joaquin Miller was no Spaniard and he invented the “western novel” genre before your grandparents were born.

Your insistence on the point that English speaking people do not use the name Jesus as a first name out of respect is baseless. That is true of many English speaking Christians, but some English speaking people have the name Jesus and they are not immigrants of Spain or Mexico, and they chose the name precisely honouring the son of their God.

Furthermore, the name Joshua is the English translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua, and there are thousands of people named Joshua around the World, most of them English speaking Christians. Those are facts. You have made a long and convoluted argument to deny the facts and make yourself appear to be an expert of sorts. I take it into context, and imagine who the statements are coming from.

They aren't facts.

"Joshua" is not a translation. It's a transliteration. Big difference.

 

[Godwilling]

Πού είναι Ζορμπάς; Μήπως αυτός να χαθεί;
Pode ser uma estratégia de distração.
Quizás no ha visto el mensaje aun.
Peut-être, il est occupé à la recherche de traductions de Google.

 

[Godwilling]

They aren't facts.

"Joshua" is not a translation. It's a transliteration. Big difference.

Do you also agree with him that, "people in the US and England do not name their chidlren Jesus and that they are immigrants if they do because English speaking people do not name their children Jesus out or respect"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you also agree with him that, "people in the US and England do not name their chidlren Jesus and that they are immigrants if they do because English speaking people do not name their children Jesus out or respect"?

It's just a naming convention that has nothing at all to do with the nature of the name itself.

I have a brother named Joshua, which is derived from the same Hebrew word that the Greeks transliterated into what English transliterates to Jesus.

In actuality, English speaking people name their kids Joshua with just as much freedom as Spanish people name their kids Jesus.

By now I suspect that Europeans don't consider naming their kids Jesus because it's just uncommon and it has nothing to do with respect.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Πού είναι Ζορμπάς; Μήπως αυτός να χαθεί;
Pode ser uma estratégia de distração.
Quizás no ha visto el mensaje aun.
Peut-être, il est occupé à la recherche de traductions de Google.

Obviously.

 

[Godwilling]

It's just a naming convention that has nothing at all to do with the nature of the name itself.

I have a brother named Joshua, which is derived from the same Hebrew word that the Greeks transliterated into what English transliterates to Jesus.

In actuality, English speaking people name their kids Joshua with just as much freedom as Spanish people name their kids Jesus.

By now I suspect that Europeans don't consider naming their kids Jesus because it's just uncommon and it has nothing to do with respect.

Is that an intentional racist remark or an honest mistake based on ignorance?
Do you know in which continent is Spain?
How many prominent and famous Europeans with the name Jesus as a first name would you like me to list for you?
Did you make it up, read it 20 years ago, or are you going to cite some "source" for your information?
Alternatively, you could travel there and see for yourself.
Do you know the Viking/Icelandic word for one who has not travelled much?