IS YAHOSHUA MISTAKENLY CALLED JESUS? hewhay: In reading the King James Version of the scriptures, we find a word with an interesting translation: Acts 7:44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; This scripture referring to Joshua, son of Nun rather than the Saviour. Hebrews 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Again, the context reveals that this scripture is referring to Joshua, the son of Nun and not the Messiah. All other translations put "Joshua" here. Why then is it translated 'Jesus'? The answer lies in the Greek/Latin corruption of the Messiah's original Hebrew name. Originally, the name of the Messiah was יהושע, pronounced Yahoshua. This is the Messiah's original name. When the Gentiles tried to transliterate His name into Greek, they came up with ihsoun or "Iesous". This word was from #3091 (Strong's - 2424. Iesous ee-ay-sooce' of Hebrew origin (3091); Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites:--Jesus.) in the Hebrew which is יהושע . When Iesous was transliterated into Latin, it became "Iesus", which was then carried over into English it became our modern day "Jesus" when the letter "J" developed. Therefore, the reason the KJV has "Jesus" in those two verses is because the Messiah's name is actually the same name as Joshua, Son of Nun... correctly pronounced "Yahoshua". hewhay: References Barnes' notes: (Note on Matt. 1:21) "His name is Jesus: The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the New Testament it is used where is means Joshua, the leader of the Jews into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should have been retained." Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Sacred Name ---- The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek "Iesous" which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning 'Jehovah is Salvation' " Vol. 8, p. 374 Encyclopedia Americana: "Jesus Christ--- ...Although Matthew (1:21) interprets the name originally Joshua, that is, 'Yahweh is Salvation,' and finds it specially appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, it was a common one at that time." (Vol.16, p. 41) Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.) "Jesus Christ---...The same is true of the name Jesus. In the Septuagint it is the customary Greek form for the common Hebrew name Joshua;" (Vol. 10 p.149) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion: "Jesus (The Name) --- Matthew's gospel explains it as symbolic of His mission, 'For he will save His people from their sins.' This agrees with the popular meaning as 'Yahweh saves...' " p.1886 Interpreter's Bible: (Note on Matt. 1:21) "Jesus: for He shall save: The play on words (Yeshua, Jesus; yoshia, shall save) is possible in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. The name Joshua means "Yahweh is salvation" Matthew Henry's Commentary (on Matthew 1:21) "Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the Greek Smith's Bible Dictionary: "Jesus Christ ---- The name Jesus means Savior, and was a common name, derived from the ancient Hebrew Jehoshua." Then Joshua = Yoshua or Yahoshua because there is no "J" sound in Hebrew. The letter "J" being about 400 years old and isn't even found in the original 1611 King Therefore the Messiah's name never was "Jesus" which is actually a Latin translators transliterated invention. Yahoshua is the name of the Messiah hewhay: There is No Messiah, Just a Messianic Age The 1885 Pittsburgh Platform [stating the principles of Reform Judaism] rejected the traditional Jewish hope for an heir of King David to arise when the world was ready to acknowledge that heir as the one anointed (the original meaning of mashiach, anglicized into "Messiah". In the Avot, the first [blessing] of the Amidah [a central prayer in Jewish liturgy], Reformers changed the prayerbook's hope for a go-el, a redeemer, to geulah, redemption… --Commentary on the Pittsburgh Platform, www.ccarnet.org a viewpoint of a Jew hewhay: A fact often overlooked by historians is that Christianity’s origins are suspicious. During the entire era in which the religion purportedly emerged; another Jewish messianic movement, called the Sicarii, fought in Judea against imperial Rome. This militaristic movement interpreted –- quite logically -- that the same prophecies that the Gospels claim envisioned Jesus, actually predicted the coming of a warrior Messiah who would lead the Jews against Rome. It is unlikely that such a movement would have permitted Jesus, a multicultural and pacifistic “son of David” (Jesus’ philosophy it should be remembered contradicted the original David who was a xenophobic warrior) to have wandered about the Judean countryside teaching his followers to “turn the other cheek” to Roman authority. Further, the Gospels’ literary style is much closer to the popular Greek and Roman romances of the day -- that often featured a hero, empty tombs and resurrection scenes -- than the ascetic style of writing used throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. Given the above, perhaps the most natural suspects for the creation of the Gospels would have been the Roman Caesars. Certainly the most likely of the Caesars would have been the Flavian dynasty, which lasted from 69 – 96 CE, the period when most scholars believe at least some of the Gospels were written. It consisted of three Caesars: Vespasian, and his two sons: Titus and Domitian. Flavius Josephus, a Jew who was an adopted member of the royal family was their official historian and wrote War of the Jews, the history of the family’s war against the Sicarii. Though overlooked by virtually all of New Testament scholarship, this group should be regarded as the prime suspect for the creation of Christianity because they possessed all of the requirements to have done so. They had a strong financial motivation to replace the militaristic religion of the Sicarii that waged war against them with a pro Roman Messiah cult, they were known to have a staff of intellectuals with the expertise in Judaism and philosophy necessary to write the Gospels, and they possessed the knowledge and bureaucracy required to implement a religion (the Flavians created and maintained a number of religions other than Christianity). Moreover, this royal family was the absolute rulers over the territories where the first Christian congregations began and therefore determined which literature was permitted to circulate in the area. Further, the Flavians should be considered as the creators of the Gospels simply because the victors write history. Many of Jesus’ “prophecies” are regarding the military victories of the Flavian family. These include the destruction of the Galilean fishing villages, Jerusalem being encircled with a wall, and the leveling of the Temple, which were all “brought to pass” by Titus Flavius during his military campaign through Judea, which concluded with his destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 CE. Titus was also parallel to the Jesus of the Gospels in that he was a “son of God” -– his father had been declared a “diuus” by the Roman Senate following his death -- and he founded religions. The Flavians are also linked to the origins of Christianity in that a number of royal family members were among the first Christians. In fact, the first Christians for whom there is any archeological evidence were members of the Flavian family. But this begs a question. Why was a cult that advocated poverty and meekness so attractive to a family that practiced neither?  Point5andahalf: The name you use, 'Yahoshua', is the same as Yeshua which is the same as Joshua. You're right about no 'J' in their language, that's how it was translated in all the bibles I know of. The 'J' should be pronounced as 'Y'. Here another explanation I found- Meaning, origin and etymology of the name Joshua [It didn't copy the hebrew characters, but you'll get the drift.] The name Joshua occurs four times in the Bible. Most famous is the judge Joshua the Ephraimite, the successor of Moses and the one who leads Israel into the Promised Land. The original name of this Joshua is Hosea (; Num 13:16) but Moses names him Joshua. Other Joshuas are: the owner of a field in Beth-shemite where the Ark returns to Israel (1 Sam 6:14); A governor of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:8); A high priest (Hag 1:1). Joshua is also the original Hebrew form of the Greek name Jesus. A shortened form of Joshua (although not clear in English) is the name Jeshua (). The name Joshua is a compilation of two elements. The first element is , which is the commonly accepted abbreviated form of , which is YHWH, the Name of the Lord. The second part of the name comes from the verb (yasha 929), be saved, delivered. Derivations (yesha 929a) and (yeshua 929b) both mean salvation. Derivation (shoa 929c) indicates a 'free man,' meaning an independent person. BDB lists under and reads Yah Is Salvation. NOBSE reads Yahweh Is Salvation. The name Joshua is the Hebrew form of the Greek name Jesus, and most probably the name by which Jesus was known by His contemporaries. Jesus was fascinated by the Book of Isaiah, probably mostly because this Book appears to be entirely about Him, but perhaps also because the name Isaiah () is almost identical to the name Joshua with the two segments reversed. Other names that are formed from the word are Elisha and Ishi. Names that in Hebrew start with a yod are in English written with an I or J. In regular text the yod is commonly transliterated with a y. May YHWH increase your understanding | Religion Chat Room 32 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
