Jesus Fought the Battle of Jericho

[SallyF]

The name "Jesus" is just an alteration of the very common name "Joshua".

Is the NT superhero given the name "Jesus" by Christians to make their guy appear unique and singular and non-Jewish …?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]

Jesus/Joshua are simply the English transliterations of the Jewish name Yehoshua. There is no record that this was done for any reason other than for English speakers to be able to pronounce the Hebrew/ Greek* names. While many English names are in fact anglocized versions of bible names due to the countries Christian history, as far as I know, no bible translations have actually replace Jewish names with English ones such as Charles or Alfred.

* The gospels were mostly written in Greek











JW

RELATED POSTS


How do we get the name Jesus from the Greek Iesous?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 412#918412

What is the name to which very knee shuold bend?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#872695

Go to other posts related to JESUS' NAME , PRONUNCIATION and ...LORD

[ttruscott]

Christians do not believe Joshua who led the attack upon Jericho was Jesus because the accounts of the story have him meeting his commander on the field:

Joshua 5:13-6:27
13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?�

14 “Neither,� he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.� Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?�

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.� And Joshua did so.

To re-frame the story for one's own ends...such strawman arguments are of no consequence to Christians.

[SallyF]

The name "Jesus" is just an alteration of the very common name "Joshua".

Is the NT superhero given the name "Jesus" by Christians to make their guy appear unique and singular and non-Jewish …?

Why call one Yahshua "Joshua" and another Yahshua "Jesus" other than to make one of them appear unique and special with amazing superpowers ...?

Looks awfully like insidious Christian deception to me.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why call one Yahshua "Joshua" and another Yahshua "Jesus"

Because Joshua is a transliteration from Hebrew and the bible character appeared in the Hebrew Scriptures. And Jesus is a transliteration from GREEK and the bible character appeared in the Greek Scriptures (written mostly in Greek).

For details see my earlier post LINKED here
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 440#918440

[SallyF]

Why call one Yahshua "Joshua" and another Yahshua "Jesus"

Because Joshua is a transliteration from Hebrew and the bible character appeared in the Hebrew Scriptures. And Jesus is a transliteration from GREEK and the bible character appeared in the Greek Scriptures (written mostly in Greek).

For details see my earlier post LINKED here
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 440#918440

Really …!?

Take a careful look at a couple of NT verses in the KJV. The OT Jesus/Joshua character is happily written as "Jesus" … transliterated from the same Greek. Yet the good Christians of later times have happily given the same Greek rendering two distinct English renderings. Joshua for one, and Jesus for their superhuman godman hero.

Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; Acts 7:45 KJV

After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David,
NIV

For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Hebrews 4:8


For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. NIV


Looks like insidious Christian deception to me.


And BTW, the Septuagint was in Greek.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why call one Yahshua "Joshua" and another Yahshua "Jesus"

Because Joshua is a transliteration from Hebrew and the bible character appeared in the Hebrew Scriptures. And Jesus is a transliteration from GREEK and the bible character appeared in the Greek Scriptures (written mostly in Greek).

For details see my earlier post LINKED here
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 440#918440

Really …!?

Yes really



As has been pointed out, both names essentially mean the same thing so there is nothing to stop anyone from transliterating directly from the names root Hebrew. Indeed as you point out some early English bibles did just that. The fact remains however that both are legitimate transliterations and the difference is dictated by the language of the text origjnally sourced.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

And BTW, the Septuagint was in Greek.

Congratulations, evidently you know how to use Google; was there a reason you felt the need to point that out to me?

[polonius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... istoricity

“Many scholars cast doubt on the historicity of the Book of Joshua.[3] They speculate that its origin lies in a time far removed from the times it depicts,[7] and that its intention is primarily theological, detailing how Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[8] One theory holds that the story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[9] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of King Josiah(reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[10] Scholarly doubts about the historicity of the conquest, including the battle of Jericho in particular, depend on a contested assumption that relevant evidence should be dated to the second millennium BCE.[11][12]�

See also

" Excavations at the ancient site of Jericho by Kathleen Kenyon from 1952 to 1959 led her to conclude that no city existed there anywhere near 1410 BC (Kenyon 1957: 262), and excavations at Ai by Joseph )' y Callaway resulted in a similar conclusion (Callaway 1985, 1993).�

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 9 by polonius]

"Nationalist propaganda …"

Possibly one of the most accurate descriptions of the very human and very political collections of Jewish writings some folks insist are the "Word of God".


Not one of those folk ever demonstrates that a single word of it DID emanate from their god, Jehovah/Yahweh/Whatever.


Not one of those folk ever demonstrates that Jehovah/Yahweh/Whatever is any less imaginary than Thor or Krishna or Anyothergod.


Christianity is as much delusion and deception as Anyothergod.