Jesus to our own liking?

[Elijah John]

People on this site all too often accuse others of "making a Jesus to their own liking". Maybe so, but doesn't this work both (or several) ways?

Haven't Trinitarian Christians for centuries been making Jesus to their own liking, ie into a god?

Or Aren't some atheists and agnostics also currently attempting to make Jesus to their own liking, as someone who did not believe in YHVH, or in God at all, but only went around preaching love?

Here for your consideration several views of Jesus, a mix of serious and light-hearted

1) A hippie-like flower child who preached only love of neighbor?
2) A "buddy Christ" like the one in Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma"?
3) A wandering "Cynic sage" removed from his Jewish context, and given a Greco-Roman one instead?
4) The cute "baby Jesus"? and from the prayer scene in "Talledega Nights":
5) The "Ninja Jesus"? 6) the "party Jesus", 7) the "Skynyrdesque angel band leader" Jesus?
8) The devout, but revolutionary/reforming Jew, who actually believed in God?
9) The God-in-the-flesh who wanted to start his own "Church"?
10) The avenging, apocalyptic Jesus of the book of Revelation

For debate:

-Which is your favorite Jesus and why?
-Which is the most historically likely Jesus?

By all means, if I missed any good option, please add.

Difflugia offered these two as well:

11) The Gnostic, spirit Jesus
12) The magic-child Jesus from the non-canonical infancy Gospels.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Jesus is not a transliteration of my Lord's name...

Sure it is. It's just not transliterated straight into English from the (presumed) Aramaic, but is transliterated from a Greek word, that is itself presumably a transliteration of Aramaic. It's the same process that gave us Moses, Isaac, Joseph, and John.

"Presumably" is a pertinent word (and it also passed through Latin).

Either way, a transliteration is meant to save the sound of a word or name (this has been lost).

A translated word (or name) maintains the meaning of a word or name.



"Jesus" does neither of those things.

"Jesus" also removes the name of God (JAH) from the name of His Son; since the name of God was not pronounced by the Jews (again, a tradition).


Jaheshua = Jah saves/Savior of Jah.


Joshua would be the English transliteration (even if not entirely accurate as it also does not show the name of God). But Joshua is how the name is translated in the bible when referring to the man who led Israel after Moses (Joshua the nun). So no, the same process that gives us Moses, and Joshua (the nun), and Isaiah, etc, is not being employed with the name of the Son of God.

Tradition would also have us believe that two of the four evangelists spoke face-to-face with Jesus Himself. When they wrote the story down in Greek, they chose to represent His Name as ΙΗΣΟΥΣ. Did the proper way to write His Name not come up in discussion during the three years they were together?

Did they? Are you assuming that we have the originals? Or that the copies are exact representations of the originals? Or that the sounds those letters were meant to relay in greek were different than the sounds in Hebrew? Because that is not how transliteration works.


The following link gives a good example of how transliteration of a name is supposed to work:

https://www.londontranslations.co.uk/fa ... anslation/





Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

"Presumably" is a pertinent word (and it also passed through Latin).

Yes. That's right.

Either way, a transliteration is meant to save the sound of a word or name (this has been lost).

A translated word (or name) maintains the meaning of a word or name.

"Jesus" does neither of those things.

I know the difference. By Greek rules, Ἰησοῦς is a reasonable transliteration of Yeshua. Greek (ancient and modern) doesn't include an "sh" sound and the final sigma is a Greek nominative ending. In Latin, this is Iesus, which again has different endings for different case permutations.

Keep in mind that our source documents about Jesus were written in Greek, so our only way of knowing His Aramaic name is by working backwards. The Old Testament Joshua is Ἰησοῦς in the Septuagint, so Jesus and Joshua most likely had the same name, but it's possible that Jesus' parents named Him Ἰησοῦς in Greek. It's not very likely and I don't think that's what happened, but (as apologists are so fond of saying) we can't prove they didn't.

"Jesus" also removes the name of God (JAH) from the name of His Son; since the name of God was not pronounced by the Jews (again, a tradition).

Did first century Jews also not pronounce Isaiah, Josiah, or Hezekiah?

Joshua would be the English transliteration (even if not entirely accurate as it also does not show the name of God). But Joshua is how the name is translated in the bible when referring to the man who led Israel after Moses (Joshua the nun). So no, the same process that gives us Moses, and Joshua (the nun), and Isaiah, etc, is not being employed with the name of the Son of God.

It is. "Moses" clearly passed through another language before making it to English because "Mosheh" can be represented just fine in English. "Isaac" should be "Yitzchak," and that's only if we allow "ch" for the guttural "h" that's alien to English.

Are you assuming that we have the originals? Or that the copies are exact representations of the originals?

Close enough that we can be all but absolutely certain that the evangelists represented the name of Jesus as either ΙΗΣΟΥΣ or ιησουσ depending on whether they wrote majuscule or minuscule.

Or that the sounds those letters were meant to relay in greek were different than the sounds in Hebrew?

Yes. We have transliterations from Greek to other languages, including Hebrew and several forms of Aramaic that were contemporary with the New Testament writings. We have a very good idea of the sounds being represented in both directions.

Because that is not how transliteration works.

I see. My mistake.

[tam]

[Replying to post 21 by Difflugia]


Perhaps a couple question then?


Do you think that "Jesus" (GEE - ZUHS) is the name that the man (called the Christ) was ever called? Do you think that Jaheshua (the "J" pronounces as a "Y") - or even Yeshua - sounds anything like Jesus (GEE-ZUHS)?




Peace again to you!

[1213]

…
-Which is your favorite Jesus and why?
..

My favorite is the King of kings, because I like the idea that in the end truth, righteousness and love wins.

[Clownboat]

…
-Which is your favorite Jesus and why?
..

My favorite is the King of kings, because I like the idea that in the end truth, righteousness and love wins.

How does it follow that proclaiming oneself to be King if kings means that truth, righteousness and love will win?

No issue with your favorite Jesus by the way, just not sure how to follow the logic (or lack there of with the truth/love stuff).

[marco]

Jesus is not a transliteration of my Lord's name, and a rose is not a Tree (of life).

I also did not refer solely to the name.

The name Jaheshua, rescued from its original script, is transported into a pleasanter form, Jesu, in Latin or Jesus, if more letters are to be preserved. It makes the person's name more presentable to us. There's a shortening, making the name more acceptable to the tongue, and this is a transliteration of the original. Had we translated his name as Saviour and called him Sevvy, this wouldn't be a transliteration.


I'm sure a rose isn't a Tree of life but I think we can have a rose tree, though it wasn't my intention, when quoting Juliet, to enter into a horticultural debate.

" He is the actual person who intercedes on behalf of His Bride. "


Do you care to explain why you believe this should be considered 'completely inappropriate'?

The metaphor is about the sexual union of man and wife. The Church is usually the lucky recipient of the bride status - Ecclesia being feminine - but when one pursues the metaphor with Christ as the active groom we get into murky territory. Though I dislike Revelation I understand it regards every pious soul as the bride, so that the marital union is magnificent polygamy. Or rubbish.

Marco I said nothing about individual people, fanatics or otherwise. Surely you are not denying that the religion (the RCC itself) sanctioned violence, forced conversions, even encouraged and ordered such things to be done?

It seems to be God's choice to work through imperfect vessels the better to display his majesty: Peter, the denier of Christ, doubting Thomas and the unfortunate Judas.
Do we say that because Judas was bad, Christ was wrong since his choice of worker indicated a flaw? The Church for all its sins preserved writings we hold precious today. It was for many a "lux in tenebris", a light in darkness. I am sure not all Muslims endorse killing people for naming a teddy bear Muhammad.

All humans and human institutions are imperfect. I don't like to quote Paul but he had a point when he suggested we have but a shadowy understanding of how things are. And I think those who claim the sharpest vision are most blind.

[marco]

…
-Which is your favorite Jesus and why?
..

My favorite is the King of kings, because I like the idea that in the end truth, righteousness and love wins.

A more humble one is "servus servorum" slave of slaves. The man who nibbled a bit of fish and walked wearily round the roads of Galilee is not a glorious king. The sarcastic inscription Pilate gave him, INRI, emphasised his imposter status not his royalty.

[Difflugia]

Perhaps a couple question then?

Do you think that "Jesus" (GEE - ZUHS) is the name that the man (called the Christ) was ever called?

If He was a real person, then probably not to His face. I think, though, that nearly every Christian called Him "ee-ay-SOOS," since it looks like most Christians were Greek speakers, either as Gentiles or diaspora Jews.

I think it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the idea of Jesus Christ was created by Greek-speaking Jews based on Joshua in the Septuagint, whom they also called ee-ay-SOOS. Though I'm sure that there would have been Christians arguing that everyone should pronounce His name in the Hebrew way, it's possible that the first person to ever refer to Jesus Christ by name in any language, did so in Greek as ee-ay-SOOS, ho christ-OS.

It's reasonably likely that He was a real person, though. If He was actually a Palestinian Jew, His name could have been any of Yehoshua, Yeshua, or Yeshu as there is evidence that all three were used as Aramaic given names during the first century. If the Gospels are fiction, but Paul's Jesus was still a real person, there's the anemic possibility that Jesus was a Greek-speaking, diaspora Jew named Iesous.

Do you think that Jaheshua (the "J" pronounces as a "Y") - or even Yeshua - sounds anything like Jesus (GEE-ZUHS)?

Nope. Do you think Kourosh sounds anything like Cyrus (SY-russ)?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Perhaps a couple question then?

Do you think that "Jesus" (GEE - ZUHS) is the name that the man (called the Christ) was ever called?

If He was a real person, then probably not to His face.

So you agree then that this would not have been His name.

(I know you have added 'unless he was a fictional character', in which case I will leave you to explore that theory with others - since a fictional character named Jesus is also not my Lord)

Do you think that Jaheshua (the "J" pronounces as a "Y") - or even Yeshua - sounds anything like Jesus (GEE-ZUHS)?

Nope.

Well there you go! If you looked at the link I provided, the phoenetics of the name Alexandru are maintained in whatever language it is being transliterated into. The letters are different; the sound is the same.


"Jesus" is not an accurate transliteration of my Lord's name.

Do you think Kourosh sounds anything like Cyrus (SY-russ)?

Are you attempting to support an error with an error?

In answer to your question, though, that would depend upon the language the letters are from, and how those letters are phonetically pronounced in that language. "J" in English has the 'juh' sound; in Spanish, an "H" sound; and in Hebrew, a "Y" sound.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

So you agree then that this would not have been His name.

I agree that this would probably not have been how people that spoke His language would pronounce His name, but it's likely how Paul and the evangelists pronounced His name. The name of Yehoshua, Yeshua, or Yeshu the hypothetical rabble-rouser executed by the Romans was pronounced one way. The name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Son of God, was pronounced primarily another. You're welcome to pronounce the name of Jaheshua, your own personal interpretation of Jesus, however you like, but my point is and always has been that your transliteration rules are no less arbitrary and no more valid than any others. The only datum we know for sure is Ἰησοῦς.

Well there you go! If you looked at the link I provided, the phoenetics of the name Alexandru are maintained in whatever language it is being transliterated into. The letters are different; the sound is the same.

Alexander can, in your opinion, be reasonably transliterated between different languages because the sounds in Alexander's name have analogs in all of the languages we tend to deal with and none of the letters involved have suffered any pronunciation shifts.

"Jesus" is not an accurate transliteration of my Lord's name.

By your apparent definition of "accurate," an "accurate" transliteration between any two languages is so rare that you had to cherrypick Alexander to find one and even that one isn't perfect.

Do you think Kourosh sounds anything like Cyrus (SY-russ)?

Are you attempting to support an error with an error?

Nope. I'm making the point that everyone that reads English knows who "Cyrus" the Great is, but nobody knows "Kourosh" the Great (except for the late Vernon Howell). The transliteration is so that people that read a different language than the original can have an intelligible conversation. "Jesus" fits that bill, but "Jaheshua" doesn't, even if you're there to specify German pronunciation rules for the "J".

In answer to your question, though, that would depend upon the language the letters are from, and how those letters are phonetically pronounced in that language. "J" in English has the 'juh' sound; in Spanish, an "H" sound; and in Hebrew, a "Y" sound.

Yodh is usually transliterated into a "Y" in English, but "J" in German. In the 18th and 19th centuries, most of the groundbreaking biblical scholarship was written in German and that's whence we inherited "Jehovah." English-speakers started pronouncing Jehovah with a hard J and here we are. "Jah," in fact, is also usually pronounced with a hard J and refers to the Rastafarian interpretation of Yahweh.