What did Jesus Look Like?

[Theunis]

PS - Not a virgin - a maiden.

Yes I am aware of this - it was just another incorrect translation.
I did say I have no problem with your quotes except maybe for the time line.
If he was Isaiah's son I cannot find the reference to where and when this transpired and that his wife was a young girl or that his son was named Emmanuel.

 

[Ingledsva]

No I am not missing the point, I tried to clarify where the name Jesus and the derivations of the original word came from.
Isn't this changing a foreign word into your own language a translation or Folk Etymology where the original meaning remains unchanged?

Americans say an automobile and the English say a motor car. Just different words for the same thing. Or Sotho "Bhuruku" (they never had trousers only loin cloths) for Afrikaans "Broek". (pronounced brook)

NO! This is not a translation. They knew the correct name was Iēsous, - but could not make the correct sound, - making a guttural - jah -sound on the front.

This is well known. I don't know why you have a problem with it.

They knew it and so do we as we have the Greek.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes I am aware of this - it was just another incorrect translation.
I did say I have no problem with your quotes except maybe for the time line.
If he was Isaiah's son I cannot find the reference to where and when this transpired and that his wife was a young girl or that his son was named Emmanual.

Not his wife.

He was in a war situation, - they were told they would be given a sign, - and told to go into the Temple maiden/Prophetess - and she conceived.

Seven tells us the sign is for Isaiah, recorded by Ahaz, and eight is the carrying out, and tells us his ceremonial name.

Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (Ahaz and Isaiah) a sign; Behold, a maiden/virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 8:3 And I (Isaiah) went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. (Meaning something like - quick to the plunder = a warrior.)

Isa 8:18 Behold, I (Isaiah) and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Again - even a Strong's will tell you Emmanuel is Isaiah's son. The number is Hebrew 6005.

*

 

[Tumah]

Also the Christian page you sent us to said Jesus is a translation of Iēsous. This is not correct. Jesus is a guttural corruption of Iēsous.

*

I am under the impression that the "J" actually comes from the German spelling where it is equivalent to the English "Y". I guess the English translations just imported the German spelling of the names.
A lot of names that start with the Hebrew equivalent of the letter "Y" became J's in translations.
Jessica, Jacob, Judah, Joshua, Jehoram, Jeremiah, Jonah

Israel, Issachar, Isaiah and Ezekiel are exceptions for some reason.

 

[Ingledsva]

I am under the impression that the "J" actually comes from the German spelling where it is equivalent to the English "Y". I guess the English translations just imported the German spelling of the names.
A lot of names that start with the Hebrew equivalent of the letter "Y" became J's in translations.
Jessica, Jacob, Judah, Joshua, Jehoram, Jeremiah, Jonah

Israel, Issachar, Isaiah and Ezekiel are exceptions for some reason.

Actually they knew the correct name was Iēsous, - but could not make the correct sound, - making a guttural - jah -sound on the front.

Later it got changed to the letter J.

I can't figure out why - having the texts - and the correct names - they would just change them.

*

 

[Theunis]

Did you miss that BEFORE?

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Before this child is old enough to understand to refuse evil, - the two king from verse one will be forsaken.

Those two Kings are mentioned in verse one as warring against Jerusalem, at that time, with Ahaz and Isaiah being involved in that war.

And Again it says the sign is for Ahaz.

Isa 8:18 Behold, I (Isaiah) and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

And it is still talking about the same war in 20.

Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

PS - Not a virgin - a maiden.

Forgot to add that even STRONG'S tells us Emmanuel is Isaiah's son. Look it up.

*

http://www.crivoice.org/immanuel.html

The foregoing link is a long and most interesting read .
Apart from the uncertainty concerning Isaiah's second child Immanuel, I now having read this article and seeing where the Messiah of the NT originated, I fully agree with you even on the timeline as indicated by you.

 

[outhouse]

You don't know me from a bar of soap and your thoughts on my biblical knowledge or education is far from correct.
I was a deacon and on the church welfare council in my youth and received the highest marks for the "confirmation" exam.

That is not academic knowledge sir.

I know you very well. I have seen hundreds just like you come and go, and some are still here. Like it or not you fit a common MO.

There is theological knowledge, and you do quite well there sir, my hats off. Never had an issue with that per say.

But we also have historical knowledge, and that trumps theological knowledge, when a historical question is asked.

 

[Ingledsva]

http://www.crivoice.org/immanuel.html

The foregoing link is a long and most interesting read .
Apart from the uncertainty concerning Isaiah's second child Immanuel, I now having read this article and seeing where the Messiah of the NT originated, I fully agree with you even on the timeline as indicated by you.

Baloney! It is covering a war at that time, a sign for them at that time, with named Kings and events, and continues with them to the end of the text.

A SIGN God was with them in their war, and they would win it before the child knew the difference between good and evil, and they did.

No future bull.

Did you bother to look up Immanuel in your Christian Strong's? # H6005

MY - MY! It says Immanuel is Isaiah's son.

*

 

[outhouse]

Sorry you must have been typing when I added a link concerning the name Jesus.

Sir, let me offer some help here.

Do you even know Jesus first real name as used in Galilee?

 

[outhouse]

http://www.crivoice.org/immanuel.html

.

Not credible.

 

[Ingledsva]

http://www.crivoice.org/immanuel.html

The foregoing link is a long and most interesting read .
Apart from the uncertainty concerning Isaiah's second child Immanuel, I now having read this article and seeing where the Messiah of the NT originated, I fully agree with you even on the timeline as indicated by you.

I forgot to add - that YOU had better reread that article you sent us to.

It does NOT say Immanuel is Jesus.

Near the top -

"From this, when blended with our systematic formulations of the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth, it is easy to assume that Matthew is dealing with the Isaiah passage as a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus. Yet, this approach leaves the Isaiah passage without meaning for well over 700 years until Jesus was actually born. It also ignores the context of the passage in Isaiah 7.

Near the end it says -

"The final phrase "God is with us" is the exact phrase in Hebrew as the name Immanuel in 7:14 and 8:8. This was the climax of the prophetic word at this time to Ahaz. Because of God’s presence with his people, there is hope and possibility beyond the immanent doom that Ahaz envisioned and that was proclaimed for the Northern Kingdom because of its apostasy. This is the heart of the theology of the name of the second child.

It is this theology of the name of the child that lies behind Matthew’s use of this passage in Isaiah. By linking Jesus with the concept of Immanuel in Isaiah he is making a theological connection about the mission of this child in the world."

In other words there is no actual connection.

*

 

[Theunis]

I forgot to add - that YOU had better reread that article you sent us to.

Why should I reread something I fully understood? you have completely missed the point. My arguments concerned the time line and I did say that because of this article your arguments are now acceptable to me !

 

[Theunis]

Not credible.

So what then according to you are the facts?

 

[Theunis]

Sir, let me offer some help here.

Do you even know Jesus first real name as used in Galilee?

Yes sir you intimate that you know so how about enlightening me !

 

[Theunis]

Baloney! It is covering a war at that time, a sign for them at that time, with named Kings and events, and continues with them to the end of the text.

A SIGN God was with them in their war, and they would win it before the child knew the difference between good and evil, and they did.

No future bull.

Did you bother to look up Immanuel in your Christian Strong's? # H6005

MY - MY! It says Immanuel is Isaiah's son.

*

Sheesh did you not understand that after reading that article I had no arguments with your timeline and the fact that I never said Jesus was Immanuel the son(?) of Isaiah.
I would suggest that YOU reread the article to see how in context the names of the sons were used by Isaiah !

You are now running around in circles because you cannot see that I conceded your point and that I have now increased my knowledge and understanding of what transpired

 

[Theunis]

That is not academic knowledge sir.

I know you very well. I have seen hundreds just like you come and go, and some are still here. Like it or not you fit a common MO.

There is theological knowledge, and you do quite well there sir, my hats off. Never had an issue with that per say.

But we also have historical knowledge, and that trumps theological knowledge, when a historical question is asked.

Aw gee you know me well yet you remain totally ignorant of me with you assumptions. Read and understand what it was about when I said what was necessary. Academic knowledge is not involved when someone does some thumb sucking and makes assumptions. It was plain goading and really of no consequence.

The common MO fits you like a glove.
Historical knowledge is only correct if the historian wrote it as an outsider for it is a well known fact that many historians/winners write history the way they like it to boost their stance and egos.

 

[outhouse]

Historical knowledge is only correct if the historian wrote it

False.

No ancient text is studied as correct or accurate, whether one is inside or an outsider as you say.

is a well known fact that many historians/winners write history the way they like it to boost their stance and egos.

So what?, we know that going in before we determine what is and is not historical.


You did not address my post in any way, you skirted around it. Theological knowledge is not historical, what is historical is determined, not what is written.

The bible is not always historical, nor do we demean its text by saying it is divinely inspired.



This is a debate section, if you want safety you can go into the same faith section. Here you will not be able to override history using apologetic rhetoric. We have been debating the same topic over and over for years, and your just walking in and refusing knowledge.

 

[Theunis]

False.

No ancient text is studied as correct or accurate, whether one is inside or an outsider as you say.



So what?, we know that going in before we determine what is and is not historical.


You did not address my post in any way, you skirted around it. Theological knowledge is not historical, what is historical is determined, not what is written.

The bible is not always historical, nor do we demean its text by saying it is divinely inspired.



This is a debate section, if you want safety you can go into the same faith section. Here you will not be able to override history using apologetic rhetoric. We have been debating the same topic over and over for years, and your just walking in and refusing knowledge.

This is all useless rhetoric for you assume history to be correct even if written by the victors to boost their self-image.
Your incorrect assumptions concering me are once again showing and they make me smile for I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge; As such I seek the truth and NOT safety.

 

[outhouse]

This is all useless rhetoric for you assume history to be correct

Excuse me sir. What history have I assumed was correct?

As such I seek the truth and NOT safety.

That's good.

 

[Theunis]

Excuse me sir. What history have I assumed was correct?



That's good.

Oops my mistake you said No and I saw a period after this word
. Yet you did sidestep my statement regarding the veracity of historical events and who wrote it. You with an unsubstantiated statement said it was false.

Incidentally I am not British nor am I a knight so I am not, in the old meaning of the word, a Sir

Added as an edit; here is what you previously said
"But we also have historical knowledge, and that trumps theological knowledge, when a historical question is asked."
Does this not suggest that historical knowledge is correct ?