I would tread more prayerfully than carefully. There were many named 'Jesus'. Consider that the Talmudic stories about a son of Pantera didn't necessarily exist until the 2nd century A.D. Some if not many or most might fail to realize the link to the name at Exodus 3:14 which was put there for a reason. The names Hosea and perhaps even Isaiah are related to the discussion. The Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician words for savior and deliverer are 'yeh-shah' and 'howshea'. Add 'yeh' or the like to the beginning of 'howshea' and you get 'yeh+howshea' which is hardly a slur. However "Yehushuah " perhaps you have a point. Referring to someone as a bastard isn't a slur? A bastard according to whose standard?Originally Posted by David Merrill
There are so many people who have never researched out Jesus' Hebrew name Yehoshuah. Those who do, often called Messianic Jews, abbreviate and (Talmudic) slur Yehoshuah to Yeshuah; which actually removes the theophoric prefix:
Even changing it to Yehushuah is a slur against Jesus being Godly in nature....
So please be clear that I believe Jesus was Son of God, named Yehoshuah. You will find this agrees with Young's, Strong's and Richardson's concordances. It is this man and the Son of God who I am calling a bastard.
In Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician the tidbit "shua" can connote: "sink or be bowed down, or humbled". However 'shea' is sometimes transliterated to 'shua'. 'shaua' refers to a 'cry for help'. However 'yeshua' means 'salvation' (rel. fem. noun). Also related are: shoa (free man or noble), yesha (salvation) and teshua (deliverance/salvation).
As for hijinx concerning names and name games of concealing true names, that some ancient Babylonians had complexes over the truth and were prone to demand to be worshiped and prostrated to seems plain in the historical record. No surprise at all if their progeny seem to follow suit. How much from Babylon can be deemed to be reliable? How do first and second century interpretations somehow manage to trump thousands of years of Ancient Old Dynasty Egyptian (remember Moses wrote using ancient Egyptian words) and Hebrew teachings and writings?
The Hidden Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV Connection
Also, one might do well to consider the Idumean attack on Israel (FROM WITHIN) and subsequent taking of Judea (with the help of Rome and Pompey) then capture of the Temple (130BC to 0AD ) and destruction (70AD) in view of your model concerning Nebuchadnezzar [two hundred years vs twenty]. The coming of the one predicated by Israel in Genesis was purposed to thwart Babylonian-Edomite attempts at 'taking heaven' (they couldn't do it by way of the Tower, so they went after the Temple and the Holy of Holies (as a gateway or portal)). All of such preceded by Antiochus IV Epiphanes who besieged the Jerusalem temple and slaughtered a pig there. The same Idumeans (Herodian line) helped siege the Jerusalem temple YET AGAIN ~63 B.C. But that is what Antiocus IV did only a 100 years or so before. Pompey (Roman general) with Hyrcanus (Herodian) help overcome Aristobulus and eventually himself entered the Holy of Holies too!
The problem for the Babylonians is that they weren't necessarily experts in Egyptian. They have attempted to claim origination of that which was written in a language which predates Babylon: fail.
It was an Idumean army that arrived in 68AD. How 'convenient' that the details of the 60 AD to 70AD periods have been left out of the discussion in "Christian churches" for so long. So begs the question: how can the "Jews" (Judeans, those of the house of Judah) that rejected Jesus and who were either taken into captivity or slaughtered at Jerusalem also be the very same "Jews" (Idumeans) who brought an army against Jerusalem together with the Romans? Mind you: Israel was predominantly in captivity or exile at the time.Three and a half years the Shechinah abode on the Mount of Olives hoping that Israel would repent, but they did not; while a Bath Kol [the voice of God] issued announcing, ‘Return, O backsliding children [Jer. 3:14]. Return unto Me, and I will return unto you [Mal. 3:7],’ When they did not repent, it said, ‘I will return to my place [Hosea 5:15]’ (Midrash Rabbah Lamentations Proems 25. Ernest l. Martin also states that the church historian Eusebius may have also mentioned the fact that the Shekinah or Glory Cloud left the Temple and settled on the Mt. of Olives in?Proof of the Gospel: “Believers in Christ congregate from all parts of the world, not as of old time because of the glory of Jerusalem, nor that they may worship in the ancient Temple at Jerusalem, but . . . that they may worship at the Mount of Olives opposite to the city,?whither the glory of the LORD [the Shekinah] migrated when it left the former city.” (Eusebius Proof of the Gospel 6.18.) Though Eusebius seems to echo the Midrash, these words taken in context appear to convey a different message. Eusebius means that the Shekinah left the Temple and settled on the church who he believes is represented by the Mt. of Olives, not that the Shekinah literally settled on the Mt. of Olives in A.D. 66 as Martin claims.)
The main persons arguing are the ones aiming to deny the truth or to overlay (cover) it with something else. Consider those who deny Edomite Herod's slaughter of the Innocents when ancient 350BC text written in latin (for which, 'conveniently', English translations are hardly available online except behind a pricey paywall or campus restricted context) that records Augustus responding to the news of the Slaughter of Innocents perpetrated by Herod and saying that he'd rather be a pig (hus) than one of Herod's sons (huios) (some leave out the text about the slaughter of infants under the age of two years, again, 'conveniently'). When leaders of a religion, philosophy or political system deliberately mislead 'followers' even to the extent of omitting over 160 years from the calendar--for the purpose of concealing the truth--, how reliable can their testimony be? What is there then to argue? Lies vs truth. Yielding to the truth yields fruit, no arguments then.
Consider those who spend lots of time hiding Middle Eastern artifacts in order to thwart proof of Bible historical accuracy. Not to mention that Joseph (Imnhotep) wasn't just an imaginary symbolic figure--he really lived and the evidence is all over the place. Who is arguing but those who want a different 'truth'. If those who tell us that its "all relative" really believed that--they would leave others alone, but they don't tend to unless checked.
Cum audisset inter pueros quos in Syria Herodes rex Iudaeorum intra bimatum iussit interfici filium quoque eius occisum, ait: Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium. --from Macrobius' Saturnalia
Note that by the time of Macrobius' writings, Syria Palaestina would have referred to the merger of Judea and Syria into a singularity.Related:Later, in 135 AD, in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt, Syrian province was merged with Judea province, creating the larger province of Syria Palaestina.
Reply With Quote