It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And then EHYEH is a revelation of the Covenant God. So that these point to the fullness of the revelation of the GREAT name of Yehshas or Jesus as Creator God, the Blessing God, the Covenant God, and lastly the Saving God. Hence we have here that as the tabernacle and all the symbols and rituals of the Old Testament were TYPES and SHADOWS to be fulfilled and brought to their climax and completion with Christ and the New Testament Church WITH THE REAL, so all the temporary and substitute names and titles of God were only types and shadows of the REAL name of God revealed in Jesus Christ. So that the name of Jesus or Yehshas is not derived from any name of God, but visa versa, they were all derived from and point to Jesus Christ from which they all have their type.
It is a falsehood for anyone to claim the letter “J” and its sound did not exist until the 16th century. Many of our letter sounds come down to us from the Egyptian and Phoenician languages. These are the two root sources of ancient Paleo Hebrew, Greek, and other languages.
The letter "J" arguments against the name Jesus have no weight or validity as the Egyptian language had a "J" sound and image and Paleo Hebrew descends via this language and its Phoenician root.
It is only reasonable then to see that the Paleo-Hebrew "G" and the "I" also carried the same characteristics. Moses used the Egyptian "Je" as in "Jelly" giving the letter "I" the "Jod" or "G - J"
A compound name derived from "Jeh" a contraction of Ehjeh (Exodus 3:14: I AM) joined with "yesha" the Hebrew word salvation (Jeh-yesha); shortened to Jehsha(s) adding the "s" for syntax. Hence Jehsha(s) is transliterated Jesus.
Moses was the first to make a compound name from Ehjeh and Oshea forming Jeh-Oshea or as in the KJV Jehoshua (see Numbers 13:16).
By connecting I AM the meaning of Ehjeh with SALVATION the meaning of yesha, we draw near understanding what the name Jesus means.
Scholars differ on the meaning of Ehjeh asher Ehjeh in Exodus 3:14. It is generally accepted to mean I AM that I AM. Ehjeh was the God of deliverance for the Israelites from Egypt. The name Jesus derived from Ehjeh ( I AM) plus that of Yesha (salvation) reveals the God of the burning bush as DELIVERER but now who has appeared to bring SALVATION (See Matthew 1:23). The meaning of Jesus' name is captured in the words of Gabriel: "thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins."
Jesus is a correct and accurate rendering of the Hebrew Jeh-yesha and the associated names Jeh-oshea, Jehoshua, and JehShua(s). The Iesous spelling in Greek is a Jewish name not a Greek name. On the cross the name Jesus was written in Hebrew as Iehshas, in Greek as Iesous, in Latin as Iesus. The Iesous spelling is found in the 280BC Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (In Greek there is no "sh" sound so the "h" is omitted)...www.benabraham.com...
these are all historical writings written not years and years after Jesus.
Let us also not forget about all of the LOST scrolls, I mean the Library at Alexandria was FULL of historic texts that were lost to time
Can you show me how information was EASILY exchanged back then, when few people could read and write? Can you produce FACTS to back up your claims, and can you see how I made ZERO assumptions, only you did that?
But I do know the premise of the original argument is bunk when they wont even consider the accepted writings of men who did claim to walk with Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Simon, Peter, Paul, Judas, etc.
But I do know the premise of the original argument is bunk when they wont even consider the accepted writings of men who did claim to walk with Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Simon, Peter, Paul, Judas, etc. Thats quite a bit of people who walked with him daily, and several of them DID write books or scrolls that talked about Jesus.
phishfriar47 said, and you agreed, that the premise of this thread is entirely invalidated, because the testimony of all these biblical people (people indicated in the quote I cited), people that phishfriar47 claimed actually "walked with Jesus" is being ignored.
This isn't true. No one knows who wrote the The Gospels, they're ALL anonymous, and date well after the fall the Jerusalem in 70AD.
Paul NEVER met Jesus and specifically made the claim that EVERYTHING he preached and taught about "Christ" was received through revelation directly from "Christ". All Christianity that comes through Paul concerns a celestial Christ.
And I still agree. Much of the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony. Nothing has changed about that, and the burden of proof is on mythicists to prove otherwise.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?
In his latest book, Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman demonstrates a degree of intellectual and academic dishonesty I cannot remember ever encountering before outside of religious propaganda.
Mr. Ehrman would have us believe, in short, that Jesus was not, as the Gospels describe him, the virgin-born miracle-working son of YHWH who raised the dead and himself rose from death to fly into the sky accompanied by angels — but, on the other hand, that the Gospels are reliable sources that tell us, in his words, that “Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pliate was the governor of Judea.” And he bases his claims on his own unevidenced reconstructions of multiple generations of sources he has declared that the Gospels were based upon.
Yes, you read that right. According to Mr. Ehrman, the Gospels got 99 44/100% of the facts worng about Jesus, but Mr. Ehrman is uniquely qualified to identify exactly the 0.56% that they got right, and that that’s enough to absolutely conclude that “Jesus did exist, whether we like it or not.”
For quite some time, it’s been obvious that the Gospel writers were shameless plagiarists. There are extended passages directly lifted, word-for-word, from each other. However, the copying isn’t exactly linear, and some scholars have performed analyses that have suggested that it’s more plausible that they were instead copying from an older source today referred to as “Q.” Mr. Ehrman uses Q as evidence for an historical Jesus, even though nobody can even say for certain that it even ever existed. Worse, Mr. Ehrman notes that the Gospels and presumably Q were all written in Greek, but his Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. Yet, since there are a couple token words of Aramaic here and there in the Gospels, that means, to Mr. Ehrman, that there must be an entire lineage of written and oral traditions over the years, morphing from Aramaic into Greek, and he cites all of those as historical evidence for his Jesus. And, as if even that wasn’t enough, he has the unmitigated gall to claim that at least one of these phantasms constitutes an actual eyewiness source.
The chutzpah Mr. Ehrman displays with this fabrication is astounding. This is academic dishonesty on the grandest possible scale.
You were the one back slapping and high fiving the ignorance of the poster who's whole argument was based around the fact that, he thought, Paul, Simon, Matthew Mark Luke and John were personal friends of Jesus, when there is no such evidence, outside the Bible.
Bart Ehrman's diatribe about the factual unreliability of the Gospels, and the Epistles was posted in order to put an end to that argument.
How in the world are you imagining an intellectually honest debate, introducing the Q Document, when most posters believe like phishfriar47, that Mark, Matthew, John, Luke, Simon and Paul were the authors AND the eyewitnesses who wrote the Gospels?
And, talk about hucksters peddling intellectual dishonesty to sell a book!
If you could kindly point out where I engaged in any back slapping or high fiving, I would like to see it.
Im just curious, and I may be wrong here, but werent the words of Mattew, Mark, Luke, and John written personally by people that knew jesus? Where are their actual writings, and why werent they included in this 'research'?
I mean their stories are supposedly their telling of when they met and followed Jesus. So whats the deal with that?
You are correct. The author cited in the OP discards this fact however (as do all mythicists), because said authors and witnesses were the first Christians, therefore it is assumed their testimony is unreliable.
I feel I have thoroughly proven to any rational reader why there is a good case for a historical Jesus and that you have thoroughly proven of your own accord, why mythicists tend to suffer a touch of "intellectual dishonesty".
What I stated was that they were based on eyewitness testimony.