It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What was Jesus's Last Name? I Don't Think it was Christ.....or was it?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I know that some of you probably know by now that I'm not a religious person, but, this site has got me wondering about things that I read here. I don't honestly know if there was a guy named Jesus who was born to a virgin some 2000 years ago.

But, that there was a guy named Jesus. I can accept. The virgin mother? I don't know about that. And isn't Bethlaham in Israel? I could be wrong on this, but do they have many spaniards/mexicans living there, or did they? Cause again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Jesus" a Spanish name?

One would think that he would have the last name of "Joseph"? What name would that have been? Or, I think the story goes that this virgin (Joseph's wife?), then she might not have been a virgin and not known what causes a person to become .........devirginized(?) but I think as the story goes, she was a virgin and "God" put the baby in her. So, would that make Jesus not Josephs son, but God's son? Yes, I think that's how the story goes.

Then he would have had to have God's last name, wouldn't he? What is God's last name? He probably doesn't have one. Well then, did Joseph have any part in the life of Jesus? What happened to him after he built the manger?

Did the people who wrote the Bible forget about all that mundane stuff? Or have I just not heard about is because I've never read the Bible, and those who have, just never found it interesting enough to talk about?

Confusing stuff!!!!!




posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I think the story is that God fertilised the egg directly, without having to "devirginise" Mary. God is supposed to be all powerful after all. Also, I don't think Jesus was his real name, just a "Romanisation" of his actual name. He wouldn't have a last name, because as you point out, God does not have one either.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
It is highly indicated that the Virgin cults of Rome were incorporated into the Christian religion. Should anyone question about this, it sets off the usual blinders, as if the virginity of Mary were totally central to the faith. In my mind I could actually care less whether or not this point of dogma is an operating reality. I care about matters of universal brotherhood, and the Fatherhood of God. Such things which challenge the faith deeply and alienate the Gospel message from people who do not focus on "miracles," is not necessarily the best way to spead the good news. The Catholic Church has made statements on the extent of "Mary Worship," that sometimes dominates services. Any opinion that the birth of Jesus may well be a natural birth, and that the "virgin birth," refers to the purity of the human spirit within Jesus, is totally shut down far too often. It would make more sense to consider the "virgin birth," to be one of high spiritual depth, rather than only physical sperm from "God," and physical egg from the immaculate and sin free "Mary." Again are Christians "straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel," as we read in the Gospels?

Can you imagine how many people are alienated from the essential truths by making things such as this an issue? Maybe the "virgin birth," happened both ways, as a physical conception and a spiritual conception, but it should not make it next to impossible to share the good news about Jesus. The presence of "Virgin cults," in ancient Rome are flags on the questionable nature of this phenomenon, things that people should think about before signing away the farm about their own beliefs. Religion is a thoughtful matter that does not require "mindless faith," except from those who have politics, inquisitions, and other things detracting from the message of essential truths within. One can have the flexibility to arrive upon the same conclusions in different ways, that is the way of literary over ignorance. While religion is a personal matter, it is also a spirited community.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Jesus is called Jesus Christ because Christ in latin means Messiah. His real name was either Jesus of Nazarus or Jesus son of Joseph.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Believers do not ask such questions:they just beleive everything that they
have to believe as instructed to them by priesthoods or similar.Questioning
is forbidden and even to read the bible could be dangereous for their be-
lief.As for me,JC is a mythological person like all the others of that kind and
there's enough proof around available not to worry about those man-made
gods.
Flanders



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vegemite
Jesus is called Jesus Christ because Christ in latin means Messiah. His real name was either Jesus of Nazarus or Jesus son of Joseph.


I thought his name was Emmanuel or Jmmanuel...?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Vegemite says:

"Jesus is called Jesus Christ because Christ in latin means Messiah. His real name was either Jesus of Nazarus or Jesus son of Joseph"

Actually, "Christos" is Attic Greek, not Latin. There is no Latin word for "Christ"; the closest would be "deus" ("god"), "dominus" ("lord") or "salvator" ("savior").

Interestingly enough, in Greek the sound "Ch" is written as "X", which is where we get "Xmas" for Christmas.

I suppose, given the culture of the time, Jesus would have been reffered to as "Yeshuah ben (or bin) Yusuf" or, by His disciples, "Rabboni" ("teacher").



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Jesus was called by different names in the different books. The most common, I'm sure, would be Jesus O. Nazareth.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Back in those times they didn't use surnames. Generally, it is agreed , that the organization of the surname, as we know it today, can be ascribed to the Norman race about 1120. The inspiration for this monumental event was not a cultural or spiritual happening, is was an economic necessity. And if you're going to consider "surnames" This is where it began throughout most of Europe.

Often it was "Bob, son of Joe" or "Bog, son of joe, from anytown" in fact many middle-eastern names still use this method. Saddam Hussein al-Majd al-Tikriti would be translated as "Saddam son of Hussein, of the family Majd, from the City of Tikriti". But most people call him Saddam, becasue it is a sign of familiarity.

Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the LORD saves.

Matthew 1:20-25
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”–which means, “God with us.”
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


So Jesus named in english would really be at the time: "Lord Saves", son of "May he add", of Nazareth,(the annointed one.)

The spanish were not even around at the time until well into the 10th century ANd in spanish pronounce Jesus "Hey-Suess"

Stop trying to impose 20th century social examples to something that really has nothing in common with today



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by flanders
Believers do not ask such questions:they just beleive everything that they
have to believe as instructed to them by priesthoods or similar.Questioning
is forbidden and even to read the bible could be dangereous for their be-
lief.As for me,JC is a mythological person like all the others of that kind and
there's enough proof around available not to worry about those man-made
gods.
Flanders



Flanders real name is Michael Newdow or he's the only one in the parade who's in step. Since you couldn't contribute anything positive to the thread you had to start dissin' ... just woudn't be right to let God go unchallenged, would it?

Chief



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I have to agree partially with Jehosephat. But that I will post a reference for what it is worth:

Christ is not Jesus last name



Last names (or Sir names) were not commonly used until well after 1160 A.D. which is of course more than 1,160 years after Jesus died. Prior to this time, if there was ever any confusion with another persons name, then the place they were from, what they did as a trade or some other title - was added to their name. For example: Joseph the carpenter Joseph of Arimathaea. Mary Magdalene was actually Mary of Magdala, which was where she was from. This is why Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth. Pontius Pilate was really Pontius 'the firm,' which is what 'Pilate' means in Latin. This is how many of you got your last names. Trades - Tailor, Cooper, Carpenter, Baker, Mason, Smith, etc. Places - Johnston (John's Town), York, Carlton, London, Middleton, etc. I think you get the idea!


On the topic of the etymology of Jesus first name, there is some debate, but here is a reference about it from the Catholic Encyclopedia (For what it's worth):

Catholic Encyclopedia



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."


On the topic of the etymology of the name Christ, there is some debate, but here is another reference about it from the Catholic Encyclopedia (For what it's worth):




The word Christ, Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messias, means "anointed." According to the Old Law, priests (Exodus 29:29; Leviticus 4:3), kings (I Kings 10:1; 24:7), and prophets (Isaias 61:1) were supposed to be anointed for their respective offices; now, the Christ, or the Messias, combined this threefold dignity in His Person. It is not surprising, therefore, that for centuries the Jews had referred to their expected Deliverer as "the Anointed"; perhaps this designation alludes to Isaias 61:1, and Daniel 9:24-26, or even to Psalms 2:2; 19:7; 44:8. Thus the term Christ or Messias was a title rather than a proper name.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
OTS nailed it "Yeshuah ben (or bin) Yusuf" Jesus son of Joseph, in english.

The virgin birth is imperative in christian theology, as Jesus was the first to really be able to call God (YHWH) father.



Originally posted by Off_The_Street


I suppose, given the culture of the time, Jesus would have been reffered to as "Yeshuah ben (or bin) Yusuf" or, by His disciples, "Rabboni" ("teacher").



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Nazarene (meaning of the people of Nazareth), or Jesus of Galilee.

People didn't keep surnames during this period of time. They were know either by their father's name, or their location of upbringing and/or birth.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
His name was "Jesheua bin-Yosef", I dunno if I spelled that correctly. Also, I've always thought Christ was greek for "Annointed One".



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
quoting "esus was known as Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Nazarene (meaning of the people of Nazareth), or Jesus of Galilee.

People didn't keep surnames during this period of time. They were know either by their father's name, or their location of upbringing and/or birth."

I can assure you that he most certainly was NOT known as Jesus of Nazareth since there was no such town named Nazareth during his lifetime. In his adult life, Jesus became associated with a group (or sect) of Zealots known as the Nazorites or Nazorenes - that had nothing to do with the name of a place! Now, the Galilee part - maybe....



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Vegemite says:

"Jesus is called Jesus Christ because Christ in latin means Messiah. His real name was either Jesus of Nazarus or Jesus son of Joseph"

Actually, "Christos" is Attic Greek, not Latin. There is no Latin word for "Christ"; the closest would be "deus" ("god"), "dominus" ("lord") or "salvator" ("savior").

Interestingly enough, in Greek the sound "Ch" is written as "X", which is where we get "Xmas" for Christmas.

I suppose, given the culture of the time, Jesus would have been reffered to as "Yeshuah ben (or bin) Yusuf" or, by His disciples, "Rabboni" ("teacher").


I believe his full name was yeshua ben joseph. I think most people in isreal 2000 years ago took there father's name, and somehow put it in there name. alot of new age sites confesss that christos was an actually "conciosness" that was put into mary. But the real jesus is still trying to ascend himself.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Stop trying to impose 20th century social examples to something that really has nothing in common with today


I know that the whole thing has nothing in common with today.

Which is exactly why I am so curious about the magnitude with which it influences much of what goes on in the world today.


[edit on 3/13/2005 by CyberKat]

[edit on 3/13/2005 by CyberKat]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberKat
Cause again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Jesus" a Spanish name?

'Jesus' is a popular name amoung hispanics because they are usually quite religious, at least as a society. They are named jesus because of jesus christ. Jesus is not a jewish name. I think its generalyl agreed that his name was 'yeshuah' or somesuch. As far as a last name, he was the son of joseph, so it might be 'ben josef' or somesuch. I don't think any last name is recorded tho.

Then he would have had to have God's last name, wouldn't he?

Sure. Of course, last names indicate what family you belong to and are a cultural phenomenon, not an actual 'real' thing, so he doesn't really need a last name.

Did the people who wrote the Bible forget about all that mundane stuff?

Its only in modern times that people have first and last names, as others have noted. The romans hade a 'trinomen'. Ie Gaius Julius Caesar, from the gens Julius, ie julius was not his first name. The romans interstingly only had a dozen or so 'first names' to choose from, and from what I understand only other people in yor gens would use it. THe greeks had a different system, and the jews, yet another system. I'd suspect that the ancient jews of that time named themselves in ways somewhat similar to how arabs name themsevlves today, with multiple seemingly long names.
Also, think about modern afghans. They've dropped the usage of a family name altogether, and go by one name. Or, in southern india, some peoples have an interesting naming system. A person's last name is their father's first name (more or less). Contrast that with, to throw a little indo-europeanstuff in, the similar scandinavian practice.
Actually, from what I understand, the nameing system there can be rather sporadic, or at least was, and some brothers, of the same mother and father, can haave different last names, because of how they were entered in to official school records, which can be very variable.
I also knew a person from an area, elsewhere, where tribes were still recognized, but the tribes name was his last name in the west.
This is probably something similar to how italian immigrants had their names changed when they were entered into american record. Guiseppi Gnocchi D'Abruzzi, (a made up name) beceomes 'Joesph Dabruzzi', when his name originally had a 'location' signal, 'Of Abruzzi'. Heck, I've even heard of some italians who came in and said in italian 'I'm Joseph Gnocchi, from Naples' and they'd be entered as 'Joseph Naples'.



off the street
Actually, "Christos" is Attic Greek, not Latin

Interesting, i knew it was greek but didn't know anymore specific than that. I'd also add that the 'christos' term supposedly sounds like a term for 'fish', hence the fish supposedly being the early christian symbol.



eastcoastkid
I'm sure, would be Jesus O. Nazareth

Just in time for pattys day.

I thought his middle name started with an 'H'!



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Nazarene , and Nazorite were references to a perticular sect of judism to which
if i recall correctly Samson also belonged.

I have also seen it as Jesus bar Joseph. again as i recall Jesus is the Greek translation.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Well, to call the Zealots, Nazorites, or Nazorennes a sect of Judaism is neither completely false nor does it correctly convey what these groups were really all about. Yes, they were Jews but mostly (and to speak in very broad terms) they were as much or more political than religious. They were primarily organized opponents of the Roman occupation and the Roman influence (read that as "corruption") of the Saducees and the Sanhedrin leaders of the Temple.

Don't believe for one minute that the RCC invented corruption in major organized religion. The Jews had it perfected long before Jesus became a player on the scene. In fact, battling this corruption was one of the main reasons that Jesus got himself in so much hot water.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join