Granted

[Zzyzx]

.
Granted

1) A wandering preacher (named something other than Jesus) lived 2000 years ago, preached for a few years, ran afoul of Roman and Jewish authorities, and was executed.

2) Some claim that, contrary to common practice of the era, the executed criminal's body was placed in a tomb.

3) Some claim that a few days later the tomb was found to be empty.

4) Some conclude / assert / insist that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left.

5) Some claim that people saw the deceased alive after death.

6) Some maintain that the above indicates the deceased was 'divine' or 'the son of God'.


Are the above sound observations / conclusions that can be shown to be true and accurate descriptions of actual events that occurred in the real world?

Are the above sound basis for establishing a new religion?

[Zzyzx]

.

I am not sure how to answer this when the question comes from someone holding a historical epistemology as peculiar as yours.

It is not surprising that a Theist / Apologist would not know how to (or might hesitate to) answer questions such as:

Are the above sound observations / conclusions that can be shown to be true and accurate descriptions of actual events that occurred in the real world?

Are the above sound basis for establishing a new religion?

A truthful answer to both questions is likely to be regarded by most readers as a resounding NO -- which doesn't do much in favor of theistic / apologetic positions.

After all, if you cannot be convinced that the Rubicon-event is verifiable (it too occurred some 2,000 years ago), of course no one can convince you of the resurrection.

In reasoned and honorable debate one addresses the ISSUES rather than the PERSONS involved. Tailoring one's answers in attempt to convince a specific person (particularly when not understanding or correctly summarizing their position) is a rather amateurish mistake.

An astute person might realize that this thread has 80 views in 8 hours -- indicating that others are interested in answers to the OP questions.

[liamconnor]

.
Granted

1) A wandering preacher (named something other than Jesus) lived 2000 years ago, preached for a few years, ran afoul of Roman and Jewish authorities, and was executed.

2) Some claim that, contrary to common practice of the era, the executed criminal's body was placed in a tomb.

3) Some claim that a few days later the tomb was found to be empty.

4) Some conclude / assert / insist that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left.

5) Some claim that people saw the deceased alive after death.

6) Some maintain that the above indicates the deceased was 'divine' or 'the son of God'.


Are the above sound observations / conclusions that can be shown to be true and accurate descriptions of actual events that occurred in the real world?

The answer to the OP is a 'no'. But the facts posited in the OP do not match the case of Jesus--I am not sure who they are about?? Unless they are about another religious leader, this seems an odd subforum for this OP.

Now, if the OP has Jesus in mind, we have one critical problem: in the case of Jesus, we know far more than what is given in the list. As I pointed out, it is highly more plausible that a man should do a belly-dance than launch a nuclear missile: but when we know that that man is the leader of North Korea, things change. Thus when we plug in concrete data into the vague "Some" the situation becomes much more complex. And some people want that complexity to be explained in a satisfactory manner; thus they proceed by way of elimination (Just as the disciples in the gospels do: first assuming the body was removed, then, wondering whether they were seeing a ghost, then, after tactile evidence, accepting he was raised) using historical methods. Of course not all care to do this; many are quite content to leave it all a remote mystery of the past and go about their lives. I have no qualm with such. But until they tackle the problem, do they have any business telling those who do investigate the situation that their conclusions are wrong?

[bluethread]

In reasoned and honorable debate one addresses the ISSUES rather than the PERSONS involved.

I agree. That is why I would say that series of assertions would not, in and of itself, provide sufficient justification for establishing an organization prescribing a certain set of behaviors. However, such organizations have been established on less, i.e. Mormonism, Scientology, Christian Science, etc., not to equate those in any other way. However, if those things are put in the context of an existing culture and belief system, that could have significant effect on that culture and belief system.

[chriss]

.

I am new to this forum. I have never come across the idea that the character known to Christians as Jesus (Jeshua or Joshua) actually had a different name. On what basis do you say this.

Hi Chriss. Welcome to the Forum -- good start by asking an intelligent question.

Yeshua (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵש�וּעַ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻ�עַ ("Yehoshua" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.[1][2]

The Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) appears in some later books of the Hebrew Bible. Once for Joshua the son of Nun, and 28 times for Joshua the High Priest and (KJV "Jeshua") and other priests called Jeshua – although these same priests are also given the spelling Joshua in 11 further instances in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. It differs from the usual Hebrew Bible spelling of Joshua (יְהוֹשֻ�עַ y'hoshuaʿ), found 218 times in the Hebrew Bible, in the absence of the consonant he ה and placement of the semivowel vav ו after, not before, the consonant shin ש. It also differs from the Hebrew spelling Yeshu (ישו) which is found in Ben Yehuda's dictionary and used in most secular contexts in Modern Hebrew to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, although the Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) is generally used in translations of the New Testament into Hebrew[3] and used by Hebrew speaking Christians in Israel. The name Yeshua is also used in Israelite Hebrew historical texts to refer to other Joshuas recorded in Greek texts such as Jesus ben Ananias and Jesus ben Sira.[4]

In English, the name Yeshua is extensively used by followers of Messianic Judaism,[5] whereas East Syrian Christian denominations use the name Isho in order to preserve the Aramaic or Syriac name of Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

Also http://www.problemswithapostlepaul.com/?page_id=19

+Thanks for reply. I am aware that the name of Jesus appears in slightly different forms in different languages. However, I do not see that you can go so far as to say it is a different name. I understood you to be saying that that a preacher of a completely different name somehow appeared in literature as being called Jesus. Presumably I just misunderstood you?

[chriss]

[Replying to post 7 by Zzyzx]

Chriss - that is the rationalization. However Joshua does not transliterate to Jesus.
Joshua is Iosua (Yashua), which if Latinized becomes Ioseous.

Just like it is done for the Book of Joshua.

The derivation of Jesus is lost to us, but if you spoke Greek or Latin, the language of the New Testament, you would see Jesus spelled Ιησο�ς, and pronounces IeZeus. Which if you speak Greek or Latin means, "Hail Zeus."

Why would the Greek New Testament use the word Hail Zeus for the name of the saviour?
For the same reason Yahweh replaced Elohim - Jove is pronounced Yahweh. See below...

Welcome to the forum. You find the above is one of my typical rants - feel free to revert back to the OP.

Respectfully

Hi Willum,

Interesting idea. However languages change. Even in the OT the name Joshua had two forms Yehoshua in Joshua and Yeshua in Nehemiah 8:17 (I failed to type in the actual Hebrew). In the Judges name the e and u are short whereas in the Nehemiah version the e and u are long. Maybe the pronunciation of the name had changed yet again by the time of Jesus. I could well imagine that the Greeks had trouble with pronouncing the ayin at the end. I certainly do . Therefore I am OK with the fact that the Greeks may well have pronounced the Jewish name Joshua as ’Ιησους .

I have looked at the Hail Zeus idea. ’Ιη can mean an expression of joy but I am not sure that it can be translated as 'Hail'. Also in this case it would be a separate word appearing before the word so 'Ιη Ζευς'. Even if we accept both of these things the name would then be ’Ιηζευς and not 'Ιησους .

[Willum]

[Replying to post 15 by chriss]

Well, (the) Joy (of) Zeus works OK, I suppose.
It certainly is an odd thing to call the savior of the Jews... it is a pity we can't wrangle "saves" out of "Ie".

Why is Jesus, to the people who could read the Bible, called,"Joy of Zeus?"
Greek and Latin do not have spelling rules, so what you hear is what you read. You hear Joy/Hail (perhaps hosana?), Zeus?

A problem you still have is the number of syllables is incorrect for Latinization, and of course, Joshua is written Ιωσχ�α, or Υασουά, or any number of ways when it doesn't mean Jesus. It is amazing how important spelling becomes to a language that doesn't have spelling rules, when that detail becomes important.

[chriss]

[Replying to Willum]

I guess we have to disagree on whether ’Ιησουσ means joy of Zeus.

So where is the name Joshua written as Ιωσχ�α, or Υασουά ? Even if you tell me where it is written that way, why is it relevant?

Joshua is actually mentioned in the NT in Acts 7:45 where his name is spelled Ἰησοῦ which is the genitive of ’Ιησουσ. So Luke, at least, identified ’Ιησουσ as the Greek name of both Joshua and Jesus.

[Elijah John]

Hello, Z.

No and no on both counts. Claims such as those are a shaky foundation upon which to construct an entire religion.

Ironic that Pauline orthodoxy/normative Christianity makes a virtue out of accepting hearsay without question. A "saving" virtue at that.

Easy for Paul to make it such, as he supposedly had the advantage of meeting the risen Christ in person.

Not so easy for the rest or us, unless of course we are unwilling to question our indoctrination. Or unless we are willing to go to great lengths to accept the irrational by disengaging the rational faculty.

And it's a shame, as we may never know what a religion based on Jesus actual teachings would look like.

Jesus take on his native Judaism is buried under Paul's pagan Greco-Roman influence, the religion OF Jesus has sadly become the religion about Jesus.

Perhaps Jesus vision was simple, direct access to the Father, with no need to pass through his blood. A universal version of Judaism, freed from the burden of meticulous application of ritual purity law. His "easier yoke," "ethical monotheism" for the masses.

And this without the burden of Jesus-worship, a burden that no first century Jew likely would want to endure.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 17 by chriss]

Er... huh, you said it meant "joy."
?

Anyway, ancient Greek and Roman don't have spelling rules - they are phonetic languages.
The spelling of Jesus is only important... to prove something wrong...
The bottom line is Jesus does not have enough syllables to have been derived from Joshua.
Jesus (2), Joshua (3), Latinized Joshua, 4 syllables.

[chriss]

[Replying to Willum]

Hi Willum,

Come on. You are playing games here. It is a bit of fun I suppose. I really do not think that you should take Christianity and its claims so lightly but of course that is up to you.

See you around

Chris