Jesus, name or title?

by peacefulpete 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    During period that the Gospels were written Jewish and Samaritan apocalyptic sects revived the OT character Joshua as the archetypical agent of salvation and conquerer of Jewish enemies. There in fact were groups that could rightly be called "Joshua cults" that centered upon these apocalyptic anticipations and the character. Some would be liberators of the first century imaged themselves after the OT stories, reinacting the Joshua story in some detail or promising to do so. Joshua (Greek Jesus) became a popular name for boys at this time apparently because of the hopes embodied in the name and character from the OT. Joshua(Jesus) means "Salvation" or "he is salvation" even "YHWH is salvation". It appears then that the name 'Jesus' held apocalyptic 'meaning' for the restless Jews under foreign rule. It is only by appreciating this background that we can read and understand passages like Phil 2:5-11.

    In this prePauline hymn the God of the Jews bestows the name "Jesus" upon a supernatural being who comes to earth,but ONLY AFTER his exalting him after death. While not going into a debate about what exalting meant to the author, we find that the name "Jesus" aka "Salvation" is understood to be an honorary title rather than a personal name.

    Other passages like 1 Cor 6:11 and likewise suggest that the "name" of Jesus was a special identification linking the so named with salvation. He is given a "name greater than any name named, at Eph 1:21 which may likewise be referring to this title "Jesus" (Salvation)that this Christ receives.

    This also explains the odd naming sequence in Matt 1. There in this text the angel declares that the child's name will be "Jesus" for he will save his people..." In the next verse this angel declares that he will named "Immanuel" which means God is with us". Therefore we see an early Christian understanding that the names "Jesus' and "Immanuel" are honorary titles.

    Naturally as later Christians sought to historize the Savior character, he needed to have an actual name like everyone else does. "Jesus" was thereafter stripped of it's symbolism and meaning only to be a Jewish boy's name given by his parents. Interestingly Matt (as we have just read)appears to be aware of the meaning of the title "Jesus" to earlier Christians but then bastardizes it within his mythic virgin birth narrative. The mold was set and thereafter the Christian savior had a name, "Jesus". So in summation, if there was a historical person that spawned the legends of Jesus of Nazareth, it is very unlikely that his given name was "Jesus" because in the earliest Christian tradition the name/title was symbolic.

  • dh
    dh

    here's an interesting article on this subject that i remember saving some years ago .

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revealing Messiah's True Name
    Mini Study

    The saviour was born in Bethlehem of Judea of a Jewish virgin who spoke Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic), a Semitic dialect. He was born into a society where Hebrew was the common language. The Malak (angel) of Yahweh had announced to Yahseph (Joseph) that the child that was about to be born to Miriam (Mary) would save Israyl from their sins. His name therefore would literally reflect this meaning and mission.

    The Bible shows that whenever people where spoken to from on High, it was always to those who were familiar with or spoke the Hebrew language. Hebrew no doubt was spoken in the garden of Eden. The Bible is a Hebrew book, given to spirit filled Hebrew writers. The only language spoken for the first 1757 years until the Tower of Babel incident was Hebrew. We must conclude, therefore that Hebrew is the heavenly language. Gen. 10:30 reveals that the tribes of Shem did not join the project at the plains of Shinar (Gen. 11:2) where the Tower of Babel was built. According to Genesis 10, they dwelled at Mesha, in the foothills of Mount Sephar. Their Hebrew language was not changed. With all those facts before us, we must ask, why do our Bibles call the Savoir by the name Jesus whish is neither Jewish nor Hebrew? Jesus has no translation in any language.

    Why would a Jewish parent, whose native tongue was Hebrew, living in a Jewish community of Hebrew people, who had been addressed by the Malak (angel) of Yahweh, give his newborn a hybrid Latin-Greek name that carries no such meaning as Savoir in either language? The Greek word for savior is "soter," while the Latin is "salvare." No part of this word is found in "Jesus," a name with no etymological meaning. Recall that the Malak said His name would be related to His purpose as Savoir.

    Jesus Is Not The Name
    Part II
    The fact is, Jesus is not His Name, and never was. The renowned bible scholar and archaeologist Ernest Renan writes that the Savoir was never called Jesus in His life! Furthermore, there is not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "J" in the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "J." Neither is there a letter "J" in the Greek alphabet.

    Even our English "J" is of recent origin, appearing in English only 500 years ago, when it often replaced the letter "I," usually at the beginning of a word. The question before us is, what was the Saviour?s Name before there was a letter "J?" For some 1500 years he obviously was called by another Name that could not have contained the letter "J."

    Would his Jewish disciples call Him by a Hybrid Greek-Latin name when the bible says they were unlearned and ignorant men? (Acts 4:13) They where common fishermen who spoke Hebrew or the closely related Aramaic dialect. Not to mention that Acts 4:12 says, "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other Name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." That means that there is no other name on this planet that has been given for Salvation. In this study we will pursue the origin of the English Jesus, and present evidence from both the Bible and secular sources revealing that the name given from our Heavenly Father Yahweh was the Hebrew name "Yahshuah," the same name as the Old Testament son of Nun whom we know as Joshua.

    The Savoir clearly avowed, "I am come in My Father's Name," John 5:43. This passage means that he carried His Father's name. Just as today the family name is passed on from father to son, we would expect Yahshua the Savior to bear the Name of the Heavenly Father, and come with His authority. In the Middle East a name carries far more significance and encompasses deeper implications than names in today's Western society. There is a reason the Savoir was born in a Middle East society that even today holds one's name in high regard.

    The Savior went on to say that although the people did not receive Him, if another would come in his own name, him they would receive. He added that Mosheh (Moses) had written of Him, likely to reference to Exodus 15:2, "Yahweh has become my salvation," [Hebrew i.e., Yah-shua], (see also Deut. 18:15-19.) As already stated, the Savior's Name is essentially the same as that of Joshua son of Nun (pronounced "Yahshua"), the son of Nun, Numbers 13:16. Joshua's name originally was Hoshea, or Hoshua, but Mosheh (Moses) had prefixed the short or poetic form of the sacred Name, Yahweh, calling him Yahoshua, meaning Salvation of Yahweh. From Babylonian captivity onward, the "O" sound was dropped, according to linguistic authorities, and by the time of the Savior's birth the name was no longer "Yahoshua," but became Yahshua. This custom of shortening names is commonplace. For example "Bedlam" comes from "Bethleham," "Jon" from "Jonathan," and "Liz" or "Beth" from "Elizabeth."
    The Savior Yahshua indeed came in the Name of His Father, for His very Name means "The Salvation of Yahweh." His name contains the sacred, poetic, heavenly family Name Yah: YAHshuah. One has but to look at Acts. 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the King James Bible where the hybrid "Jesus" erroneously appears. It is obvious that scribes went through the New Testament and everywhere changed the true Name of Yahshua to Jesus. With overzealous intent, the name Joshua (Yahshua) the son of Nun had been mistakenly replaced with the hybrid "Jesus" as well! Later KJV revisions and newer Bible versions have replaced the more proper Joshua.

    No Other Name Has Salvation
    Part IV
    As stated at the beginning of this study salvation only comes through Yahshua the Messiah. Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." None other Name! That is the same name given by the Malak (angel) of Yahweh before Yahshua was born. Please note that your Bible specifically says there is no other Name! Yahshua is the only Name by which we have salvation. Yahshua, literally means "Yahweh is Salvation". In talking to the penitent Jews at Pentecost, Kepha (Peter) was inspired to give this special Name through which we are to receive salvation. He did not say to be baptized in the person of Messiah. Peter gave us a very specific command to call on the personal "name" given by the Father, Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the Name of Yahshua Messiah for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

    To be sure, the person of Yahshua is important. But the Name He was given by the Malak (angel) came from Yahweh the Heavenly Father and carries a very special meaning for the Saviour, embodying the Name of the Father Himself. The Name Yah-shua acknowledges both the Father and the salvation that is in His son, Yahshua. Upon learning truth, we are to walk obediently in it. Most of us have learned deeper truth in small increments, then put into practice what we have learned. Yahweh will continue to reveal more truth only if we accept and follow those things He has shown us. Why should He give more insight to those who reject and rebel at what He has already revealed? Once we know the truth, past ignorance does not justify our continuing in ignorance. James 4:17 "Therefore, to anyone who knows how to act righteously, but does not do it, it is sin." and again Acts 17:30 "In the past Yahweh winked at such ignorance, but He now commands all men everywhere to repent!" He reveals His truth only to those who willingly seek and follow it.

    Written by
    Alan Aldawood

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    That's a intriguing thing re Philippians 2:9-10. I honestly hadn't noticed that before. When I have time, I would like to examine what some of the critical commentaries have to say on this text.

  • pc
    pc

    Peaceful- thanks very interesting.

    DH Where is this information found? Thxs pc

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    This issue was one important feature of Robert M. Price's article discussing the possible identification of Jesus and John the Baptist, as was mentioned on another thread a few weeks (months?) ago. This article doesn't seem to be online anymore, but the subject still appears in the following review of Price's Deconstructing Jesus:

    http://www.human.st/jesuspuzzle/BkrvPric.htm

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Narkissos.....Oh, I printed out that paper but must've missed that datum. And I'm glad I have it if it is no longer online. Here is the URL but the host is down:

    http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/pricejj.html

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Barnabas 12:8
    What again saith Moses unto Jesus (Joshua) the son of Nun, when he
    giveth him this name, as being a prophet, that all the people might
    give ear to him alone, because the Father revealeth all things
    concerning His Son Jesus?

    Here this very early association of the Joshua archetype with the Son of God seems to lend to the argument. Price, Doherty and Wells have all made comments to the effect that the name "Jesus" was likely a title that became inseparable with the Christian savior figure that it became believed to be an actual given name.

    It's nice to have responces to this thread, I was beginning to wonder if I had worn out my welcome.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    the link works for me

  • dh
    dh
    DH Where is this information found? Thxs pc

    hi pc, this info i saved a number of years ago, i'm sorry i've no idea where i got it from originally, i just saved it with the name of the authour.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    PP.....Sorry about not replying sooner, I was out of the country and got behind in reading the forum. I wonder what other non-Christian Jewish sources should be examined for traces of such a notion about Joshua and the name Jesus. Zechariah 3:1-10 would be one obvious text. Here we have a heavenly Joshua in the court of God, as a "high priest" (e.g. like Melchezidek?) with no explicit link to the Joshua associated with Moses and the conquest. The faithful actions of Joshua are linked to the restoration of the people (in a Messianic sense) in v. 7-10, Joshua is presented first in a state of corruption and iniquity and then glorified to perfection (v. 2-5), and Joshua is challenged by Satan in the heavenly court (v. 1-2). These separate features appear in the Pauline and pre-Pauline material regarding Jesus. The main difference seems to be that Joshua is not explicitly designated as a savior; tho the open-ended suggestion of Joshua being the promised "Branch" through whom God "puts aside the iniquity of this land in a single day" is quite suggestive (v. 8, 9b). So I wonder what the Dead Sea Scrolls say about Joshua which may prefigure the Christian belief in Jesus, and what else is in Philo, the rabbinics, and the pseudepigrapha about "Joshua"....

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit