# Jesus name



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2013)

I figured asking this in the thread about it upstairs would not fly so I'll ask here.

If Jesus is Joshua in the modern translation using the English "J" but was pronounced Yeshua in Hebrew, was Joshua/Yeshua of the Old Testament also pronounced Jesus? 
Is/Was the meaning of Yeshua the same in both Old and New Testaments?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2013)

Nobody?
Is the name "Jesus" unique because it was created during translation?
Otherwise according to the original texts, is it Joshua(Yeshua) of Nazareth....same as Joshua(Yeshua) in the Old Testament?


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 15, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)



No answer there in that link.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No answer there in that link.



Sorry, I can't do any better than the information found there.
.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 16, 2013)

I would assume the name Jesus developed and changed like most words.  Time, translation, and dialect changes everything.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I would assume the name Jesus developed and changed like most words.  Time, translation, and dialect changes everything.



Right. From what I have been able to gather Jesus and Joshua are the same name as both are called Yeshua in the OT and NT.
What I'd like to figure out is if the name Jesus is a common form of Yeshua/Joshua, or was the name changed to Jesus during the English translations in order to make it more unique and not so common as Yeshua/Joshua was.

History could be Josh of Nazareth. Was it changed to have a better "ring" to it?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Sorry, I can't do any better than the information found there.
> .



No worries.
For a second I thought you were sincere. That is on me.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2013)

Found some good info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud ( This one is an eye opener)


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No worries.
> For a second I thought you were sincere. That is on me.



I was sincere.  
I thought it explained it better than I could in my own words.  Actually,  It explained a lot of stuff that I'm not even knowledgeable of.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Right. From what I have been able to gather Jesus and Joshua are the same name as both are called Yeshua in the OT and NT.
> What I'd like to figure out is if the name Jesus is a common form of Yeshua/Joshua, or was the name changed to Jesus during the English translations in order to make it more unique and not so common as Yeshua/Joshua was.
> 
> History could be Josh of Nazareth. Was it changed to have a better "ring" to it?



I don't think so.
.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What I'd like to figure out is if the name Jesus is a common form of Yeshua/Joshua, or was the name changed to Jesus during the English translations in order to make it more unique and not so common as Yeshua/Joshua was.



It's just the Anglicized version of the Greek "iesous" or IHCOYC.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't think so.
> .



You don't think so, but admittedly you don't know.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It's just the Anglicized version of the Greek "iesous" or IHCOYC.



Right. Greek translation for the Hebrew name of Yeshua,Yashua, which is translated into Joshua in English, which the "j" sound was pronounced like a "g" sound in both the German and early English languages.
In Hebrew, while "Jesus" grew up, what was he called when he was alive to his face? Was he called Yeshua which now translates into Joshua and he never really was named or called Jesus until much later through forms of translation??

Does any of this make sense?
http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> I was sincere.
> I thought it explained it better than I could in my own words.  Actually,  It explained a lot of stuff that I'm not even knowledgeable of.



This is where your link takes us


> Jesus (name
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> Did you mean: Jesus (name)
> ...



Maybe you meant to provide another link?? If so I apologize for taking your post the wrong way.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 17, 2013)

That's not the link I expected to appear.
I'll have to investigate.
.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 17, 2013)

Nope.  The link just won't take me back to the correct page.

If you're interested, do a wiki search of ..........    Jesus (name
.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Nope.  The link just won't take me back to the correct page.
> 
> If you're interested, do a wiki search of ..........    Jesus (name
> .



Yes I am interested. It seemed your link above was missing one of the parenthesis and it did not go to the link it should have. I figured it out and read it then more of those others on Wiki too.

Your time was appreciated , Thanks.


----------



## HoCoLion91 (Nov 17, 2013)

Mary was Mexican, it's pronounced (hey-Zeus )


----------



## MudDucker (Nov 18, 2013)

Why would an atheist ever care what he is called? Do you think how is name is pronounced would change his story or impact?  Do you think he is somewhat less by your mocking him with the name Josh?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

MudDucker said:


> Why would an atheist ever care what he is called?


I don't know 


MudDucker said:


> Do you think how is name is pronounced would change his story or impact?


Possibly, because it makes me wonder what else what changed.


MudDucker said:


> Do you think he is somewhat less by your mocking him with the name Josh?


I think it is a disservice to call him by a name that was possibly given to him a thousand years later in order to have a more catchy appeal to it, then all of his features morphed into a more "english" and non middle east looking version. He may in fact may have been much "less" until he was made into something he was not.
So yeah details mean a lot. I do not care if YOU are willing to overlook the obvious changes and ignore all the others. No sir, I do care one way or the other, but I came in here to discuss my thoughts with anyone that might be thinking along the same lines.
Move along if your feelings got hurt because you have to think a little more now.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I don't know
> 
> Possibly, because it makes me wonder what else what changed.
> 
> ...



Very few non-Buddhists could tell you Buddha's real name.  That doesn't change what be did or taught.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I don't know
> 
> Possibly, because it makes me wonder what else what changed.
> 
> ...



Do you really think God gets hung up on pronunciation?  It's a heart issue, nothing else.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 18, 2013)

God's Son is named "Lord".  I suspect that name is preferred.
.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2013)

According to the Lord's prayer, His name is Hallowed. 

He probably had a lot of aliases. I mean, if you were the 'son of God', you probably wouldn't want that to get around. Paparazzi would be a nightmare. 

I did find this. 

He is correct in saying Yeshua is the Hebrew name for the Lord. It means "Yahweh [the Lord] is Salvation." The English spelling of Yeshua is “Joshua.” However, when translated from Hebrew into the Greek language, the name Yeshua becomes Iēsous. The English spelling for Iēsous is “Jesus.” 

Then, I read this. http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm
Clear as mud.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Very few non-Buddhists could tell you Buddha's real name.  That doesn't change what be did or taught.



Okay.....???
I did not know we are talking about non Christians knowing Jesus real name... but since you want to take this there....

What is your percentage of buddhists that know Buddha's real name?

How many Christians know Jesus real name?

Are the feats of either man, no matter what they are called, comparable? IE: The teachings are solid but I think we get into the same problems when we try to take it to the next level of miracles, tall tales, embellishments etc.

My concern is that Jesus never wrote down a thing about himself. Everything we know has been told to us by someone who is NOT Jesus. Why was his name changed and not the other Joshuas in the Bible? They remained as Joshuas throughout the translations, where and why did Jesus name take the turn?? Was it changed at some point to make it unique and more memorable?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you really think God gets hung up on pronunciation?  It's a heart issue, nothing else.



SFD. I really don't think about God at all. You can try to change what I asked to suit yourself and give a typical man of the cloth twist to it, but I did not ask what God thinks.
I don't consider God into the mix. I flat out do not care. I am asking about this guy named Jesus and why if his name translates into Joshua, and ALL the other names in the bible that translate into Joshua STAYED Joshua, why did ONE Joshua change to Jesus a thousand years after he was dead?
The meaning of the name Yeshua(Joshua) was and is the same for Yeshua(Joshua) in the Old Testament and it stayed the same for Yeshua(Joshua) in the New testament, and anyone naming a kid Joshua today still gets the same meaning of the name. No one I know named Joshua is called Jesus for a nickname. I have a nephew named Joshua, I'd be willing to bet he would be called Yeshua over in Israel. I'd be willing to bet that when his name is translated into Greek, it is the same translation as all the other times Yeshua was translated. No one calls him Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> God's Son is named "Lord".  I suspect that name is preferred.
> .



And when he was say age 3 to 29, did his teachers, friends, neighbors, parents, siblings call him "Lord" or Yeshua? Then from age 30-33 was he all of a sudden called Jesus or still Yeshua...Yeshua the Nazarene from Nazareth? At some point he was the only Josh to become Jesus and I was wondering if any of you had ever thought about that OR have a real reason why.
I KNOW that most of you guys believe what you believe and RIGHT NOW no matter what is real or make believe YOU believe Jesus is the Lord and every single thing in the Bible is 1000% correct to you. I GOT THAT!
I am just trying to figure some things out and hoped someone had some decent information or a good sincere guess that led to more conversation.
Hopefully 1gr8 can step in here with his always excellent information that I,us,we,buddhists and non-buddhists might not be aware of.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Very few non-Buddhists could tell you Buddha's real name.  That doesn't change what be did or taught.



http://buddhasrealteachings.blogspot.com/2012/06/life-of-buddha.html
If you want to read through all of this and tell me it is all 100% accurate and truthful then we have nothing further to really say.
If you doubt any of it, then you are starting to know how I feel about it, and other religious stories about other "holy" men.
If you think well it's a heck of a good story, I can learn some things about being a better person from it, but I know some of it is not truthful and that makes me wonder how much other stuff sounds truthful but very well could be made up too, then welcome to my world.


----------



## HoCoLion91 (Nov 18, 2013)

Why do you want to complicate what is simple?  Jesus is his name.  It was told to Mary by an angel before his birth.  Just as your own mother chose your name before your birth.  During his life he was cursed, beaten, defiled, and eventually killed.  Non believers can call him whatever they want, it doesn't matter to him.  Once you know and accept him, you will call him Lord, Christ, Savior, God.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

HoCoLion91 said:


> Why do you want to complicate what is simple?  Jesus is his name.  It was told to Mary by an angel before his birth.  Just as your own mother chose your name before your birth.  During his life he was cursed, beaten, defiled, and eventually killed.  Non believers can call him whatever they want, it doesn't matter to him.  Once you know and accept him, you will call him Lord, Christ, Savior, God.



So the angel told Mary to name him Jesus but they called him Joshua. Got it.
Your reading a Bible that was translated from another Bible that was translated from another Bible and translated from another Bible a thousand years earlier.
Thanks for all of your personal beliefs but I am not looking for that here.


----------



## HoCoLion91 (Nov 18, 2013)

I don't think you know what your looking for.  I hope you find something to believe in. A man should have a conviction about what he believes.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

HoCoLion91 said:


> I don't think you know what your looking for.  I hope you find something to believe in. A man should have a conviction about what he believes.



You are coming to the party kinda late so you have a lot of catching up to do about me. I appreciate the kind words but I am and have been getting along just fine. Never been short on conviction.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> SFD. I really don't think about God at all. You can try to change what I asked to suit yourself and give a typical man of the cloth twist to it, but I did not ask what God thinks.
> I don't consider God into the mix. I flat out do not care. I am asking about this guy named Jesus and why if his name translates into Joshua, and ALL the other names in the bible that translate into Joshua STAYED Joshua, why did ONE Joshua change to Jesus a thousand years after he was dead?
> The meaning of the name Yeshua(Joshua) was and is the same for Yeshua(Joshua) in the Old Testament and it stayed the same for Yeshua(Joshua) in the New testament, and anyone naming a kid Joshua today still gets the same meaning of the name. No one I know named Joshua is called Jesus for a nickname. I have a nephew named Joshua, I'd be willing to bet he would be called Yeshua over in Israel. I'd be willing to bet that when his name is translated into Greek, it is the same translation as all the other times Yeshua was translated. No one calls him Jesus.



I was simply trying to point you to the heart of the matter.  I'm sorry if you don't care.  As for the the details, they have already been explained clearly by several good post here also.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 18, 2013)

HoCoLion91 said:


> I don't think you know what your looking for.  I hope you find something to believe in. A man should have a conviction about what he believes.



Well spoken.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You are coming to the party kinda late so you have a lot of catching up to do about me. I appreciate the kind words but I am and have been getting along just fine. Never been short on conviction.



Nope.  Just short.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was simply trying to point you to the heart of the matter.  I'm sorry if you don't care.  As for the the details, they have already been explained clearly by several good post here also.



That is the heart of your matter.
I am not concerned that I am worshiping the wrong name or that my prayers are going to the wrong guy because I am confused about his name. None of that is my matter

I am looking for the why's of the name change.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Nope.  Just short.



Thank You reverend.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am asking about this guy named Jesus and why if his name translates into Joshua, and ALL the other names in the bible that translate into Joshua STAYED Joshua, why did ONE Joshua change to Jesus a thousand years after he was dead?





Nobody's changing anything.  It's Yeshua in Hebrew and Jesus in Greek.  Also, Jesus Christ is not the only Jesus in the NT:

And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus -- Acts 13:6


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your reading a Bible that was translated from another Bible that was translated from another Bible and translated from another Bible a thousand years earlier.



C'mon.    I expect better from you.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

and Bar Jesus means..........drum roll..............


Son of Joshua


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> C'mon.    I expect better from you.



I expect better of you. You should know that had he read the earliest scrolls they would not say Jesus like his current Bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> and Bar Jesus means..........drum roll..............
> 
> 
> Son of Joshua



News flash:  The French don't say "John".  They say "Jean".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> News flash:  The French don't say "John".  They say "Jean".



Next time I even think about starting a thread about Jean the Baptist I will remember this.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I expect better of you. You should know that had he read the earliest scrolls they would not say Jesus like his current Bible.



Current Bibles say "Jesus" because the underlying Greek text says "Jesus".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> News flash:  The French don't say "John".  They say "Jean".



Then tell me why all the other Yeshuas (Joshuas) in the Bible stayed as Joshua during translation.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Next time I even think about starting a thread about Jean the Baptist I will remember this.



That's exactly what you'd see in a French Bible:  Jean le Baptiste.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Current Bibles say "Jesus" because the underlying Greek text says "Jesus".



Why does the underlying Greek text not say Jesus for every other Joshua in the Bible?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Then tell me why all the other Yeshuas (Joshuas) in the Bible stayed as Joshua during translation.



You mean all the Joshuas besides the one in Acts 13:6?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> That's exactly what you'd see in a French Bible:  Jean le Baptiste.



No argument here from me about that one, and I would expect EVERY John would translate into Jean.
The same does not hold true for one Joshua in the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You mean all the Joshuas besides the one in Acts 13:6?



Now were are getting somewhere.
Was the _Intent_ to include Bar"Jesus" there to link the name because he was the example used as a false "Jesus" ?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No argument here from me about that one, and I would expect EVERY John would translate into Jean.
> The same does not hold true for one Joshua in the Bible.



Two.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Two.



see above
you are helping more than you intended


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Now were are getting somewhere.



We are?




bullethead said:


> Was the _Intent_ to include Bar"Jesus" there to link the name because he was the example used as a false "Jesus" ?



Maybe the intent was to accurately translate the Greek text.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> see above
> you are helping more than you intended



Can we just go straight to the "gotcha" moment?  I've got things to do and people to see.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> We are?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



well then they inaccurately missed a couple of other Jesus'


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Can we just go straight to the "gotcha" moment?  I've got things to do and people to see.



Don't let me keep you here.
I have a suspicious feeling if you have those other things to do you would have been doing them.
Thanks for your input


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

Edging closer with this

http://www.eliyah.com/nameson.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

Why do we use the Hebrew translation for all the other Joshuas in the Bible and the Greek translation to get Jesus for another(except for one time referring to a false Jesus)?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 18, 2013)

Why do Messianic Jews prefer Yeshua?  Shouldn't we as Christians refer to Christ with the name closest to what his peers called him when he walked the Earth? We could say it doesn't matter and maybe it doesn't. What about the name we are baptized in or the name we pray in? Maybe it's just another one of those formalities like which day to worship. I don't believe our salvation is dependent on it but I would like to show God's only Son the respect he deserves by calling him by his correct Earthly given name.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why do Messianic Jews prefer Yeshua?  Shouldn't we as Christians refer to Christ with the name closest to what his peers called him when he walked the Earth? We could say it doesn't matter and maybe it doesn't. What about the name we are baptized in or the name we pray in? Maybe it's just another one of those formalities like which day to worship. I don't believe our salvation is dependent on it but I would like to show God's only Son the respect he deserves by calling him by his correct Earthly given name.



That is a good point but up to the believers to decide amongst themselves.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is the heart of your matter.
> I am not concerned that I am worshiping the wrong name or that my prayers are going to the wrong guy because I am confused about his name. None of that is my matter
> 
> I am looking for the why's of the name change.



Was there a name change, or was it a name translation?
.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Was there a name change, or was it a name translation?
> .



Ronny, why were all the other Yeshuas(Joshuas) in the Bible left as Joshua and One Joshua was translated into "Jesus"?
(Not counting the one example of an Anti-Jesus in Acts, which is Bar-Yeshua, which means Son Of Yeshua, which would translate into Bar Joshua, Son of Joshua but instead they used the Bar Jesus translation) and that was done to link the False prophet with the real prophet.

Why use the Hebrew translation for all the other Joshuas and the Greek translation for the main character?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Why use the Hebrew translation for all the other Joshuas and the Greek translation for the main character?



I am now completely convinced that the skeptic's inability to differentiate OT from NT is pathological.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I am now completely convinced that the skeptic's inability to differentiate OT from NT is pathological.



I am convinced that
Luke.3.29
Acts.7.45
Heb.4.8
ALL use the Hebrew Joshua NOT NT Greek.

You can post apologies right here in the forum, no need for a heart felt PM.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am convinced that
> Luke.3.29
> Acts.7.45
> Heb.4.8
> ...



Why don't you apologize for waiting till post 65 to list those verses?  I figured this one out a long time ago and have been patiently waiting for their arrival (OK, not so patiently sometime.)

These "gotcha" threads are so predictable.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 20, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I am now completely convinced that the skeptic's inability to differentiate OT from NT is pathological.



I am now completely convinced the 'Bible' should ONLY contain the NT. Perhaps the OT could be renamed to 'The Way We Were'. 

That way, when a skeptic brought up something from the bible, it would be clearly followed by all christians which would allow an actual conversation about it. 
An added benefit, christians wouldn't have to defend or deflect its meaning. Perfect.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Why don't you apologize for waiting till post 65 to list those verses?  I figured this one out a long time ago and have been patiently waiting for their arrival (OK, not so patiently sometime.)
> 
> These "gotcha" threads are so predictable.



This is not a "gotcha" thread. You are quite the expert at figuring out threads after they take a certain turn not so much before. Are you saying you set yourself up or "let" yourself get set up or did you just not remember about the 'NT Josh's" before your answer was the Greek translation??
I am looking for genuine thoughts and conversation about why "Jesus" and not "Joshua" when both are clearly used in the NT. The Greek translation excuse does not hold up.
If you are done here, please stay done.
This thread is just going with the flow, I do not have a pre-draft all typed out waiting to strike.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> I am now completely convinced the 'Bible' should ONLY contain the NT. Perhaps the OT could be renamed to 'The Way We Were'.



The NT builds on the OT.  What you're suggesting is like watching _The Return of the King_ without watching _The Fellowship of the Ring_ and _The Two Towers_.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This is not a "gotcha" thread. You are quite the expert at figuring out threads after they take a certain turn not so much before. Are you saying you set yourself up or "let" yourself get set up or did you just not remember about the 'NT Josh's" before your answer was the Greek translation??



I had never heard that argument before.  Two minutes on Google had me up to speed.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 20, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> The NT builds on the OT.  What you're suggesting is like watching _The Return of the King_ without watching _The Fellowship of the Ring_ and _The Two Towers_.



Not sure how you got that from my post. I didn't suggest anyone not read or watch anything. Just another book. Could be made a prerequisite.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> Not sure how you got that from my post.



From this:



660griz said:


> I am now completely convinced the 'Bible' should ONLY contain the NT.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 20, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> From this:



And then you stopped reading?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> And then you stopped reading?



Nope, read it all.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 20, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Nope, read it all.



Stopped comprehending? The only logical conclusion. Since, I even offered a new name for the book.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> Stopped comprehending?



My reading comprehension is fine.  I will make a mental note, though, that the next time you say:



660griz said:


> I am now completely convinced the 'Bible' should ONLY contain the NT.



... that you absolutely, positively do NOT mean that "the 'Bible' should ONLY contain the NT".


----------



## 660griz (Nov 20, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> My reading comprehension is fine.  I will make a mental note, though, that the next time you say:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that you absolutely, positively do NOT mean that "the 'Bible' should ONLY contain the NT".



Wow!  I do mean that. I didn't mean folks should not read the OT. 
You said, 





> What you're suggesting is like watching The Return of the King *without watching *The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.


How does the bible not containing the OT equate to not watching(reading) it? I never said it shouldn't be read. I even mentioned it could be a prerequisite just like watching the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in order.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 28, 2013)

Here is one guys take on it:

http://www.yahshuaservant.com/jesus-not-his-name.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Here is one guys take on it:
> 
> http://www.yahshuaservant.com/jesus-not-his-name.htm



I can see the point and we should call him by his given name. 
But at the same time what's in your heart is more important. I don't believe God would withhold my children's salvation if I taught them God's name is "The Big Guy" and Jesus is "JC."


----------



## bullethead (Nov 28, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I can see the point and we should call him by his given name.
> But at the same time what's in your heart is more important. I don't believe God would withhold my children's salvation if I taught them God's name is "The Big Guy" and Jesus is "JC."



Lets hope what you believe is what God allows.

I have always been concerned that if what is in your heart is based off of wrong, doctored, or misrepresented information you could be unknowingly doing the wrong thing no matter how good the intentions.

For instance, lets say for the sake of this conversation the God of the OT is genuine and real. What if what is written in the NT might not be accurate? What if the man was real, some of the stories partly true, but the miracles and such are embellishments added much after the fact and he is not the Son of the God of Abraham and the OT. Your heart could be in the right place but you may not have been worshiping the Son of God, God himself, or anything but a man having nothing to do with God all along. Would "The Big Guy" still be so understanding?


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And when he was say age 3 to 29, did his teachers, friends, neighbors, parents, siblings call him "Lord" or Yeshua? Then from age 30-33 was he all of a sudden called Jesus or still Yeshua...Yeshua the Nazarene from Nazareth? At some point he was the only Josh to become Jesus and I was wondering if any of you had ever thought about that OR have a real reason why.
> I KNOW that most of you guys believe what you believe and RIGHT NOW no matter what is real or make believe YOU believe Jesus is the Lord and every single thing in the Bible is 1000% correct to you. I GOT THAT!
> I am just trying to figure some things out and hoped someone had some decent information or a good sincere guess that led to more conversation.
> Hopefully 1gr8 can step in here with his always excellent information that I,us,we,buddhists and non-buddhists might not be aware of.



1000% does not add up (not possible). I don't think your "logic" is worth a hill of beans "scientifically", or "mathematically".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> 1000% does not add up (not possible). I don't think your "logic" is worth a hill of beans "scientifically", or "mathematically".



But my "figure of speech" is 100% spot on. 

My additional posts back up my logic historically.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> But my "figure of speech" is 100% spot on.
> 
> My additional posts back up my logic historically.



If you say so... I guess?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Lets hope what you believe is what God allows.
> 
> I have always been concerned that if what is in your heart is based off of wrong, doctored, or misrepresented information you could be unknowingly doing the wrong thing no matter how good the intentions.
> 
> For instance, lets say for the sake of this conversation the God of the OT is genuine and real. What if what is written in the NT might not be accurate? What if the man was real, some of the stories partly true, but the miracles and such are embellishments added much after the fact and he is not the Son of the God of Abraham and the OT. Your heart could be in the right place but you may not have been worshiping the Son of God, God himself, or anything but a man having nothing to do with God all along. Would "The Big Guy" still be so understanding?



Then the Jews get to go to Heaven and I don't. The big guy would not be so understanding. Maybe the God of Abraham made the Jesus story and the Mohammed story just to see if he could trick people into following those instead of him. Maybe the Hindus are correct and we are both doomed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then the Jews get to go to Heaven and I don't. The big guy would not be so understanding. Maybe the God of Abraham made the Jesus story and the Mohammed story just to see if he could trick people into following those instead of him. Maybe the Hindus are correct and we are both doomed.



LOTS-O-MAYBES, that I can agree on.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then the Jews get to go to Heaven and I don't. The big guy would not be so understanding. Maybe the God of Abraham made the Jesus story and the Mohammed story just to see if he could trick people into following those instead of him. Maybe the Hindus are correct and we are both doomed.



http://www.bartdehrman.com/books/forged.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2013)

A review of the Ehrman book with added info:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Ehrman.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 30, 2013)

Thanks for the links but I don't need them. I've already noticed the various stories are told differently between the various writers.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Thanks for the links but I don't need them. I've already noticed the various stories are told differently between the various writers.



The links are not about the various stories being told differently between various writers.
Reading them would have told you that.


----------

