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,

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

That doesn't make sense. Paul was a Jew. Paul also knew and spoke with the apostles (and other disciples who personally knew and followed Christ). He would have known the name of Christ AND how it was pronounced. He would not have had to READ it... he would have HEARD it.

You're welcome to pronounce the name of Jaheshua, your own personal interpretation of Jesus, however you like,

This is the name my Lord confirmed to me was true, so yes, of course I will continue to use it.

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.

We know more than that for sure: we know that Jesus (Gee-zuhs) was not His name. He was not named that.

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.

The link that I provided was not my opinion.

"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.

It was the first example that came up in a quick google search of the difference between translation and transliteration. How could that be cherry-picking? And my definition of accurate would be 'true; without error'.

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".

I have never had a problem having an intelligible conversation about my Lord; people know who I am referring to... and guess what? If someone did not know (not sure how that would happen since my Lord has a title as well)... it is a simple explanation. Sometimes just one word: Christ.

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.

But the sound is the same. Right?

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.

Yes, but this was a mistake from someone(s) not understanding that the "J" in German makes a "Y" sound. So it is inaccurate, and based upon an error. Even though we know the name of God is not pronounced with a hard "J" because we say it every time we say "Hallelujah" (Praise JAH).





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

[Difflugia]

And my definition of accurate would be 'true; without error'.

Here's where I think we ultimately differ. As far as I'm concerned, if one wants accuracy (meaning fidelity), don't transliterate. Once a transliteration happens, "accuracy" means that the readers know who or what is being discussed.

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

That doesn't make sense. Paul was a Jew. Paul also knew and spoke with the apostles (and other disciples who personally knew and followed Christ). He would have known the name of Christ AND how it was pronounced. He would not have had to READ it... he would have HEARD it.

Now this is a different discussion, but honestly, one that I find more interesting and entertaining.

Though there are a few disagreements, most scholars think that the entire New Testament that we have was composed in Greek. In short, I think that the Gospels have a reasonable chance of being fictional stories based on characters from the original Church. There's no indication from Paul that James, John, and Cephas knew Jesus personally. They were "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem and James, at least, was an apostle, but what Paul called an "apostle" was someone that had performed miracles in the name of Jesus. Skipping a bunch of detail, I think it's at least possible that the Christian Church started out Greek and the stories of Palestinian fishermen were allegorical stories with names from the actual Church written in as characters. The characters in the Gospels were Palestinian fishermen, but everything we have was written by people educated enough to read and write Greek.

[historia]

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

Just out of curiosity, why do you regularly capitalize pronouns when referring to Jesus?

[Difflugia]

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

Just out of curiosity, why do you regularly capitalize pronouns when referring to Jesus?

A combination of tradition and not wanting anyone to think that I'm trying to make a specific point by not capitalizing them.

[historia]

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

Just out of curiosity, why do you regularly capitalize pronouns when referring to Jesus?

A combination of tradition and not wanting anyone to think that I'm trying to make a specific point by not capitalizing them.

I would suggest to you that this is unnecessary. Capitalizing of divine pronouns is a relatively recent and, at best, sporadic practice among Christians. Most Bible translations and prominent theological works, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, do not capitalize pronouns.

Personally, I find the practice a bit awkward, so it is surprising to see an atheist doing it.

[historia]

Back to the topic of the thread:

Which is the most historically likely Jesus?

The most likely historical description of Jesus of Nazareth, I think, is also the one that is most widely held among scholars: Jesus, like John the Baptist before him, was an eschatological or apocalyptic prophet.

The devout, but revolutionary/reforming Jew

I suppose this one from your original list comes closest to the position I just described. But it would be mistaken to think of an eschatological prophet as a "reformer." The eschatological prophet envisions a new age brought about through radical, divine action, not reform.

a Palestinian Jewish rabble rouser, sort of a would-be bar Kokhba, a few years too soon.

This one I think is also unlikely, as the Romans would have almost certainly rounded up and executed Jesus' close associates had they perceived him as a Bar-Kokhba-style revolutionary.

[Tcg]

I would suggest to you that this is unnecessary. Capitalizing of divine pronouns is a relatively recent and, at best, sporadic practice among Christian. Most Bible translations and prominent theological works, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, do not capitalize pronouns.

Personally, I find the practice a bit awkward, so it is surprising to see an atheist doing it.

Just out of curiosity, were you a hall monitor, a crossing guard or some other like when you were in grade school?


Tcg

[Difflugia]

Just out of curiosity, were you a hall monitor, a crossing guard or some other like when you were in grade school?

I just took it to be making conversation and offering advice.

[marco]

I would suggest to you that this is unnecessary. Capitalizing of divine pronouns is a relatively recent and, at best, sporadic practice among Christians. Most Bible translations and prominent theological works, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, do not capitalize pronouns.

Personally, I find the practice a bit awkward, so it is surprising to see an atheist doing it.

I suppose it is more of a nuisance to capitalise he and him. I notice that in my old Roman missal pronouns remain stubbornly small case while "son" and "father" have gloria in excelsis awarded to them, or is it latria?

I see atheistic capitalisation (I don't do it) as a form of politeness. It certainly distinguishes the divine subject from the common herd and in some instances it avoids confusion.

But it's not a capital offence.