The name of Jesus

[China Cat Sunflower]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

Whoo-ee! Its been awhile since I looked into "the Word" Logos, and I remember being absolutely blown away. The concept runs wide and deep, encompassing far more than just "a word." So, in one sense, the English translation is off to a bad start to begin with. Another point is whether or not John (Yohannan), reputed to having actually spent time in the presence of Jesus, actually used these Greek words himself. Paul, an itinerant tent maker used to moving across socio/cultural bounds, I can see speaking and writing in Greek. But a fisherman, from an out of the way little 'burb in Galilee? I don't see it.

To be sure, the Gospel of John is perhaps the most profound of all the Gospels, and the Logos passage is a big part of that. But is it true to the basis and origin? I don't know. I want it to be...but there are some questions.

I'm struggling with this Juan, because I always start from the point of view of the writer's craft. The best information I have is that none of the Gospels were written by their namesakes. But I want to leave that aside, and I mostly want to take your pulse on how you think about these things since I think it will possibly help me with my wonderings.

I don't know how to make a coherent whole out of the various Jesus persons implied in the NT. One problem is that I can't find any reference to a specific, much less divine messiah in the OT. I don't see where they were looking for a specific person to come along and be the messiah. Perhaps this was a later adaptation of the zealot movements, perhaps they were looking for a messiah in the mold of Darius, but I can't find any specific reference to that. And I don't see anywhere in the OT where such a person, divine or not, would be expected to reverse "fallen nature", or mitigate "original sin", or take the place of the sacrificial lamb. To be clear, I'm saying that without looking through the NT lense, I don't find these concepts extant in the OT.

OTOH, the Logos is an all encompassing and totally groovy concept. But I can't figure out a way to tie IT into these other concepts.

Can you help me at all with that?

Chris

 

[Prober]

Thank you much, InLove, this is very helpful. You are right regarding my hope that there would be greater peace between all people, and between peoples ... a sustainable, liveable Peace.

I am starting to remember how important it is to keep in touch with the Vision in its pristine clarity, the idea that we CAN do it. Some people say things like, "not until Hell freezes over," and I am inclined to smile, nod in understanding, and laugh about the unlikelihood of us seeing it anytime soon.

I'd say it's pretty darnimportant that we try to take care of the planet, and even strive to establish that peace among men which I think is the precursor, the prerequisite, to Christ's Reappearance.

Love and Light to all,

~zagreus

AMEN, AMEN AND AMEN!!!

 

[Prober]

OTOH, the Logos is an all encompassing and totally groovy concept. But I can't figure out a way to tie IT into these other concepts.

Can you help me at all with that?

Chris

Yeah, me too. This (to me) is the crux of the question...

 

[wil]

....The best information I have is that none of the Gospels were written by their namesakes. .... One problem is that I can't find any reference to a specific, much less divine messiah in the OT. I don't see where they were looking for a specific person to come along and be the messiah. Perhaps this was a later adaptation of the zealot movements, perhaps they were looking for a messiah in the mold of Darius, but I can't find any specific reference to that. And I don't see anywhere in the OT where such a person, divine or not, would be expected to reverse "fallen nature", or mitigate "original sin", or take the place of the sacrificial lamb. To be clear, I'm saying that without looking through the NT lense, I don't find these concepts extant in the OT.....

I think this is the crux of the biscuit. It is what Jews say, Jesus doesn't meet our messiah prophecies despite the fact that Christians believe he does. Well whose prophecies were they I wonder?

And then they don't have issues of original sin like we do either...tis all so interesting to contemplate. I see it as this man who did wonderous things, proved the potential of the human psyche, the power of thought, the power of the word, the power of intention, the power of Knowing with a Kapitol K...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

I don't see anywhere in the OT where such a person, divine or not, would be expected to reverse "fallen nature", or mitigate "original sin", or take the place of the sacrificial lamb. To be clear, I'm saying that without looking through the NT lense, I don't find these concepts extant in the OT.

OTOH, the Logos is an all encompassing and totally groovy concept. But I can't figure out a way to tie IT into these other concepts.

Can you help me at all with that?

Not sure what assistance I can be. I started a new thread dedicated to this question, included the KJV text of John 1:1-14, and the online and book forms of the Strong's Concordance. Let's give it a go and see what happens.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

Yeah, that same dude tried to tell me Jesus was created by the aliens. I told him to go away and smoke on his peace pipe some more.

Can you see how I might view Bailey, et al, in the same way?

G-d, as Almighty Creator of universe(s), is a G-d of light, not secrets. Things that are hidden will be brought into the light and judged accordingly...I have no desire for "secret doctrines." I shy away from the Freemasons for the same reason. I don't believe in a "secret" rapture for the same reason. Jesus as the Christian Messiah is not in any closet, nor is he hiding in the desert.

In any tradition I have looked at, the way home or the next level (be it heaven, happy hunting ground, nirvana, what-have-you) is not by what or how much we know...it is by what we do with what we know.

I may know next to nothing (and probably do), but if I do nothing with the talent I have been given and bury it in the sand, I will collect the return on my investment...nothing. If I invest that talent in others, and reinvest the return, I can reap rewards for my Master's sake (which looks good on my resume when I go to the next level).

I could certainly invest my effort into every variation on the theme of religion, listening to and reading about every twist and invention humans can devise, and fancy myself a wise person because of it. But it will serve me absolutely no better than looking to G-d with the trusting heart of a child, and doing what He asks of me. If I am to listen to voices, let me listen to the voice that speaks through the little old lady who needs assistance cooking supper. Let me listen to the voice that speaks through the child who needs a "big brother" or "big sister." Let me listen to the voice that speaks through a friend who needs a shoulder to cry on. Let me listen to the voice that speaks through the love of a dog who has been spared a capital punishment through no fault other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time with no one to care. These are the kinds of etheric voices I listen to.

I cannot fault your heart...you mean well. I cannot deny you that. And no, I have not dismissed you with a "perfunctory wave of the hand," had I done so, this conversation would not have gone as far as it has. I have no interest in converting to theosophy, proselyzing to that end is wasted on me. I have seen enough to know it is not the path for me. It thrills my heart to see there are points in which we find agreement even coming from divergent angles, but I will never see the world through eyes that even come close to yours. The thing is, I can live with that knowledge, and don't hold it against you. If theosophy works for you, more power to you. That is a road I have already looked down, and I don't care for the neighborhood. Too...I don't know what, for my taste. I am content where I am at, even though I gripe a lot. Should I opt for another path, I already have one or two in mind. Sorry, but theosophy is not on the list.

 

[taijasi]

Thanks for speaking from the heart, juantoo3.

Path-wise, I think Christianity should do fine.

Peace,

~Zagreus

 

[taijasi]

For further reading on this topic, I would heartily recommend `Esoteric Christianity,' by Annie Besant, to anyone interested. I have gotten as far as the chapter on The Mythic Christ, and am about to read the one on The Mystic Christ. These follow a chapter on The Historical Christ.

The online version is here.

In Love and Love,

~zagreus septimus

 

[Prober]

For further reading on this topic, I would heartily recommend `Esoteric Christianity,' by Annie Besant, to anyone interested. I have gotten as far as the chapter on The Mythic Christ, and am about to read the one on The Mystic Christ. These follow a chapter on The Historical Christ.

The online version is here.

In Love and Love,

~zagreus septimus

Sounds like China Cat would like that.

p.s. Love the new avatar!

 

[flowperson]

Juan...righteous post dude. Things spoken from the heart always ring so true. Why in the world can't more people do it ?

Zag... if you haven't read The Sirius Mystery by Robert DeTemple you should. Mind boggling !

flow....

 

[Rastafari]

Just looked through the thread and I did not see the subject being brought up concerning Jesus Christ new name.

It clearly states in the bible that at His return He, Jesus would be called by a new name, infact He says that He has a new name, already... and that the believer would recieve it, there-fore recieve Him. For a second time in His new name at His appearing.

Please look revelation 3;12 these are not idle words He speaks here.

Consider.... who would have the faith to call Him by another name other than Jesus, and at the same time He is Jesus, as the scripture says.

He is the same today yesterday and forever,.. and let me throw this in.

Then He must also be the same today yesterday and forever in His new name when you put the two scriptures together thats what I get!

Jesus Christ has a new name wow! consider that.

 

[wil]

There wasn't even a "J" in the English alphabet until 1555 AD. King James, of KJV Bible fame, was born the following year.

And if one happens to be a literalist, then one had better stop calling on the false name of Jesus and start calling him by his birth given name...

I suppose that would litterally depend on which book one was interpretting, ie if one reads the KJV literally than his name is Jesus.

Now not being a linguist or educated in these things, if there wasn't a J in the English language what did they call James's grandfather (James V) when he was the King of Scotland preceding James (who eventually became King of England)? ie, would it have been pronounced yames...was it in scotland? would jeshua be pronounced yeshua no matter the spelling?

Tossing me into a tizzy this morning....Should we attempt to live and act like Jesus?...Yesus?...Yes-us?...Yes Us!

Then He must also be the same today yesterday and forever in His new name when you put the two scriptures together thats what I get!

Jesus Christ has a new name wow! consider that.

I often think of the straw that broke the camel's back analogy...the reverse of it...what if the world is waiting for me to increase in consciousness, for me to gain enlightment...what if I am the straw that could break the camel's back of the bondage we are currently in?

What if we were...Yes Us.

What if he is waiting for us to be ready...Yes Us.

What if that is His new name...Yes Us.

G-d is. G-d is all there is. Jesus is G-d. We are. Yes Us.

(thank you for the contemplation yawn2free)

 

[Prober]

Tossing me into a tizzy this morning....Should we attempt to live and act like Jesus?...Yesus?...Yes-us?...Yes Us!

What if we were...Yes Us.

What if he is waiting for us to be ready...Yes Us.

What if that is His new name...Yes Us.

G-d is. G-d is all there is. Jesus is G-d. We are. Yes Us.

Wil, I really like this!

 

[wil]

Wil, I really like this!

Thank yoiu, even a stopped watch is right twice a day!

Seriously, I had no intention of going anywhere with that except for trying to ascertain/learn about the 'J' issue...and pronunciations... And then that whole bit just sort of danced off the keyboard.

I like it too, it is funny what you find when you least expect.

Thank you G-d!

(arrgghh it gets stranger...I rarely reread or edit myself (duh) and I quickly looked over this and noticed the typo in the second word!! I went up to take it out, but then couldn't when I noticed that 'i' was in 'you')

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

(thank you for the contemplation yawn2free)

Just gotta say, you took the contemplation to a whole new level.

Weren't you the lucky one among us able to look at the exhibit of old Biblical texts? Surely you would have noticed the earlier spelling of Jesus' name in English?..."Iesus."

Nice play on the name "juan," in Scandanavian languages it is pronounced very like "yawn," although it is spelled "jan." In old english it is spelled "ian." Nowadays, the english is "john," not to be confused with a port-a-pot or a prostitute's benefactor.

BTW, the latin (spanish) for "St. James" is "Santiago," so I am of the inclination to think the latin of "james" is "iago."

Isn't linguistics grand?

J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quahom1]

Kindest Regards, wil!



Just gotta say, you took the contemplation to a whole new level.

Weren't you the lucky one among us able to look at the exhibit of old Biblical texts? Surely you would have noticed the earlier spelling of Jesus' name in English?..."Iesus."

Nice play on the name "juan," in Scandanavian languages it is pronounced very like "yawn," although it is spelled "jan." In old english it is spelled "ian." Nowadays, the english is "john," not to be confused with a port-a-pot or a prostitute's benefactor.

BTW, the latin (spanish) for "St. James" is "Santiago," so I am of the inclination to think the latin of "james" is "iago."

Isn't linguistics grand?

J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name Ya'acov became Iakobos in Greek. If you keep in mind that in some languages the sounds of b and v are quite similar (in modern Spanish they're identical), the Hebrew and Greek versions of the name look quite similar. By the time the Greek Iakobos became Latin it had turned into Iacobus and then Iacomus. The big change came as some Latin morphed into French, where Iacomus was shortened to Gemmes. The English James is derived from that French version.

The Spanish version morphed into "Diego" (some say "Tiago").

Incidentally, the name Ya'acov has two meanings, "may he protect" and "heel", which suites since Jacob was said to have held the heel of his brother Esau, while they were being born.

v/r

Joshua

 

[pfw]

The name "Jesus" is a linguistic extension of a Pagan God (Zeus), is the power to work miracles in that name derived from Pagan sources? Are Christians working miracles by and with anti-Christian power sources?

And the 'Amen' at the end of most Christian prayers is an abreviation of the name of the Egyptian Sun God 'Amen Ra'.

 

[Quahom1]

And the 'Amen' at the end of most Christian prayers is an abreviation of the name of the Egyptian Sun God 'Amen Ra'.

Amen is a Hebrew term, that means "truly", or "so be it".

It is not soley Egyptian, indeed found in a papyrus containing so complete a copy of the Siate Recension proves that they were held to be of considerable importance in the Ptolemaic period, and they probably represented beliefs which were wide-spread at that time.

It is an old Noahidic term which predates Amen-Ra and Ament (his wife). So, reality appears to be that the Egyptians took the word from other instead of vise versa.

 

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3
The name "Jesus" is a linguistic extension of a Pagan God (Zeus), is the power to work miracles in that name derived from Pagan sources? Are Christians working miracles by and with anti-Christian power sources?

Except that post Noahidic Joshua (the general) pre-dates the Greco "Zeus" by over 500 years, and Joshua "Ye'sh" is the root for the Hebrew Ye' shua, which leads to Eisoua, or eventually the english variant of "Jesus".

Zeus on the otherhand, came into the mind of man when...the Titans gave birth to him, being the sixth child and only one to survive Rhea and Cronus' unions.

That would put the greco god @ 722 BCE (Joshua was long dead by then).

just a thought.

v/r

Joshua

 

[pfw]

Amen is a Hebrew term, that means "truly", or "so be it".

It is not soley Egyptian, indeed found in a papyrus containing so complete a copy of the Siate Recension proves that they were held to be of considerable importance in the Ptolemaic period, and they probably represented beliefs which were wide-spread at that time.

It is an old Noahidic term which predates Amen-Ra and Ament (his wife). So, reality appears to be that the Egyptians took the word from other instead of vise versa.

Either way it still makes the point.

Quite simply mere words have roots all over the place and it's nearly immpossible, especially dealing with dead and practicly dead languages, to find which came first-there's even evidence that the Egyptian (written) language was heavily influenced/based on the Sumerian (written) language when Egyptians started writting. Seeing a Abraham original came from Ur, a Sumerian city state and Hebrew has it's origins in Sumerian...

Language- I think theres too much looking into the origin of this that and the other, too much literalist thinking, too much too much what does this word mean- looking to deeply for the 'letter of the law' rather that the spirit.

While it's all very interesting in the end what does it matter if Amen-Ra predates Amen or visa versa, or if Jesus does or doesn't have a linguistic link to Zeus???????