Yeshua... Eesho... Iesous... Jesus

[SVT93Style]

Found this intersting...



Yeshua... Eesho... Iesous... Jesus

As odd as it may seem, the name Jesus is a relatively new invention, only a few hundred years old, that was created by multiple translations and stylistic changes to the original name.

The name of the one born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph about 2000 years ago was written as in Aramaic. Most scholars agree that the common language of the entire region was Aramaic and that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and was most likely named in Aramaic.

The modern transliteration of the Aramaic into English has been written in many forms, including Yeshu', Eesho' or Eshoo. There were, and still are, many different, and often contradictory, dialects of Aramaic, making it impossible to know for certain how his name was actually pronounced 2000 years ago. That same name would be written as in Hebrew and is commonly transliterated into English as Yeshua, which is a Hebrew contraction for the name Yehoshua meaning Yah is salvation or Yah saves. Many Biblical references, such as Young's Analytical Concordance, have concluded that his name was Yeshua.

The really odd changes to his name all began with translation into non-Semitic languages.

When the name was translated into Greek, the translators were first faced with the task of deciding whether they should translate the name phonetically to try to keep the sound the same, or whether they should translate the name according to its meaning. Apparently, they chose to use the phonetic approach so that the sound of the name would be preserved, even though the meaning of the name would be lost in the phonetic translation.

Unfortunately, the Greek language lacks some of the sounds used in Aramaic. And to further complicate the issue, all Greek masculine names must end with the letter "s". So, without the proper sounds and forced to add the "s" to the end of the name, the best that the Greek translators could do was translate the name as which may be pronounced something like "ee-ay-soos". Still, that's pretty close to the original name, except for the letter "s" that was added at the end.

Then, as the books of the bible began to gain wider circulation, the name was again translated, this time from Greek into Latin. In the official Catholic bible version called the Vulgate, the name was established in Latin as "Iesus". In Latin the letter "I" when used as a consonant has somewhat of a "Y" sound, so the name may have been pronounced something like "ye-soos", which is a still pretty good approximation to the original name, except for the "s" at the end.

Over the years, as the pronunciation of the European languages gradually changed, and as the manner of writing the various letters also changed, an embellished version of the letter "I" gradually acquired a sound of it's own and over time became an entirely new letter, the letter "J" with it's current "J" sound. And, along the way, the long "u" sound of "oo" was lost and it became a short "u". So, as the newly invented printing press churned out bibles, the Latin version of the name gradually became written as "Jesus" and the English pronunciation as we know it today was gradually adopted.

Although the spelling "Iesus" or "Iesvs" was used in the King James version of the New Testament from 1611 to 1628, by the year 1629 the King James version began to adopt the spelling "Jesus". Gradually, during the 17th century, the name shifted from "Iesus" to the pronunciation "Jesus" that we are still using today.

Thus, the name was gradually changed to the English name Jesus.... which is indeed quite a different sounding name.

Fortunately, it seems that the pronunciation of the words in our prayers is much less important that the heartfelt intent of our prayers. And thereby all true seekers receive the same results whether they have learned to call on the sacred name of Jesus or Eeso or Yeshu' or Iesous.

That is to say, the pronunciation of the name is really not very important, but rather it is our intent, purpose and faith that truly matter.

The ancient Semitic root of the word for "name" is s-m, and while it does certainly mean "name" it also means much more. The s-m of something is that by which it is known, it is that which makes something different in a way that it can be distinguished from something else, it can mean light or sound or vibration, it is the very essence of something.

So, to call upon someone's "shem" is not simply to call upon the sound of their name, but it means to call upon their very essence... which is far beyond the mere utterance of a name.


Words come and words go, languages come and languages go, yet the magnificent heart of each person remains the glorious temple of God, the abode of Love Everlasting... if only we will cast off our veils of selfishness and allow the Divine Light to shine forth.

Matters such as alphabets and names and spelling are ephemeral matters, they come and go like the shifting sands. For those who are willing to seek it, there is something which is like a rock in the midst of those shifting sands, something more fulfilling than any ephemeral matter... and that "something" is the goal of the spiritual path. Let us strive to focus our attention beyond words, beyond momentary concerns, and strive to discover that glorious ever-present essence which is beyond the name.

[White trash wagon]

Your going to piss off the fundementalist!! the same ones who insist Jesus was white, and had blue eyes.

What's next, referring to god as Allah? ( which just means "god" in a different language)

Scott

[SVT93Style]

Your going to piss off the fundementalist!! the same ones who insist Jesus was white, and had blue eyes.

What's next, referring to god as Allah? ( which just means "god" in a different language)

Scott


Not sure how this ties in to the post but okay. And if there is anyone who thinks Jesus was white and had blue eyes you send him my way and I will set them straight.

Later

[Fobra]

Regardless if his name was mistranslated or not, that doesn't change what he stood for and represented ;)

[DarkWolf]

Regardless if his name was mistranslated or not, that doesn't change what he stood for and represented ;)

Never said it did :p

What I find odd though, is the other names, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Simon, etc... they weren't changed... or "transliterated". Their name in english is directly rooted to their name in hebrew/aramaic, and even roman/latin.

Yet the Greek scholars chose to transliterate Yeshua (et al). Why? Why not transliterate the rest of the names likewise?

It should be noted that Horus... the H in the Egyptian IHS Trinity God (Isis, Horus, Seb), was also known by Iesu. Horus was the son of (depending on which dynasty) Osiris, or Ra ... in otherwords, the son of THE god.

The quote above mentions that it doesn't matter which name is uttered... except that God said "thou shalt not have any gods before me", and yet for centuries the church has been praying in the name of Iesus, and now Jesus. If you find nothing wrong with that, that's up to you. There's a growing number of poeple among Christians who do, however, feel there's something very wrong with it. Not to mention Messianic Jews that refuse to use the word Jesus, and instead call him by Yeshuha. Even refusing to use Christ, because Christ is a derivative of Christos/Chrestos/Chrisma/Krishma where Kris = Sun, Hma = Diety, and instead use Messiah. ie: Yeshuha Messiah.

Also I incorrectly made mention of Iesu being a grandaughter of Apollo, in the previous thread. I got my mythologies mixed up. http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/images/smilies/redface.gif

[zorro]

Never said it did :p

What I find odd though, is the other names, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Simon, etc... they weren't changed... or "transliterated". Their name in english is directly rooted to their name in hebrew/aramaic, and even roman/latin.

Yet the Greek scholars chose to transliterate Yeshua (et al). Why? Why not transliterate the rest of the names likewise?

It should be noted that Horus... the H in the Egyptian IHS Trinity God (Isis, Horus, Seb), was also known by Iesu. Horus was the son of (depending on which dynasty) Osiris, or Ra ... in otherwords, the son of THE god.

The quote above mentions that it doesn't matter which name is uttered... except that God said "thou shalt not have any gods before me", and yet for centuries the church has been praying in the name of Iesus, and now Jesus. If you find nothing wrong with that, that's up to you. There's a growing number of poeple among Christians who do, however, feel there's something very wrong with it. Not to mention Messianic Jews that refuse to use the word Jesus, and instead call him by Yeshuha. Even refusing to use Christ, because Christ is a derivative of Christos/Chrestos/Chrisma/Krishma where Kris = Sun, Hma = Diety, and instead use Messiah. ie: Yeshuha Messiah.

Also I incorrectly made mention of Iesu being a grandaughter of Apollo, in the previous thread. I got my mythologies mixed up. http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/images/smilies/redface.gif


I guess when you have no education in languages or how language works, you think you can make up anything you like and people will be so stupid that they won't know.

"Christos" is derived from the Greek word "Chrio." It means to annoint. So, "Christos" is the annointed one. Messiah comes from the Hebrew "mashiyach," which also means anointed. So, the Messiah is the annointed one.

You might want to get a good Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, before making anymore blunders.

Z

[DarkWolf]

You're still here? I thought you decided to leave because I'm too ignorant to continue debating with :rolleyes:

You should maybe take my advice to TDD in another thread, and instead of continuing with these blatant insults and trying to get a rise out of me (you succeded once, it's going to be a long time before another happens, if ever)... you might look up that the root of Christos, is Kris, and likewise is related to Chrisma/Krishma/Krishna (which also means "to annoint" or "annointed one"). As you should already know, Krishma/Krishna is one of the Hindu avatars you felt the necessity to point out in the last thread, when trying to argue against the connection of the Christian and Hindu Trinity Gods.

It would seem the only blunders are coming from you, incorrectly assuming that since I didn't state "Christos = annointed" or whatever, that I wasn't already aware of it. A little research into the origin of names helps in this case... oh wait, you don't like the origin of things, because it's irrelevant to what it means now. How could I forget? :rolleyes:

[zorro]

You're still here? I thought you decided to leave because I'm too ignorant to continue debating with :rolleyes:

You should maybe take my advice to TDD in another thread, and instead of continuing with these blatant insults and trying to get a rise out of me (you succeded once, it's going to be a long time before another happens, if ever)... you might look up that the root of Christos, is Kris, and likewise is related to Chrisma/Krishma/Krishna (which also means "to annoint" or "annointed one"). As you should already know, Krishma/Krishna is one of the Hindu avatars you felt the necessity to point out in the last thread, when trying to argue against the connection of the Christian and Hindu Trinity Gods.

It would seem the only blunders are coming from you, incorrectly assuming that since I didn't state "Christos = annointed" or whatever, that I wasn't already aware of it. A little research into the origin of names helps in this case... oh wait, you don't like the origin of things, because it's irrelevant to what it means now. How could I forget? :rolleyes:

The last time I tried to be civil to you, I was continually slapped in the face ( see our first few posts). But I am willing to give it another try.

I went through several Greek refernece books (Strong's and Thayer's lexicon's, The NIDNTT and Kittel's Greek Dictionaries) none of them said anything about any Greek word conneted with Christos having an etymology connected with the Sanskrit language found in the Bhagavad Gîtâ. Apparently there is no Greek root word of "Kris" as you suggest. There is a Greek word "Chrisma," But once again it has nothing to do with Sun Gods, it means "to smear," like a doctor may smear an ointment on a rash.

All the Greek references agree that "Christos" means "annointed one" and comes from the Greek word "Chrio." It means "to annoint. " It has nothing to do with Sun Gods.

Perhaps you could cite your sources and let us all look up the Greek lexicons and dictionaries that agree with you.


Regards,

Z

P.S. The Greek word for "Sun" is "Ilios" and I could not find any reference in Greek mythology to "Iesu" being the grand daughter of the God Apollo. Could you site that reference also please.

[DarkWolf]

I'm not quite sure why you're asking where my references for Iesu being the grandaughter of Apollo came from... I did mention that I'd incorrectly stated that. Meaning I made a boo-boo, and was pointing out my goof.

As for no connection of Greek and Sanskrit found in the Bhagavad Gîta, of course not. The Greek language had already been developed around the time the Vedas were written (or very close to it). Greek and Sanskrit (among others) have a common ancestor language called Proto-Indo-European, or PIE. Quick google should pull up all the information you could want.

Make of it what you will.

[zorro]

I'm not quite sure why you're asking where my references for Iesu being the grandaughter of Apollo came from... I did mention that I'd incorrectly stated that. Meaning I made a boo-boo, and was pointing out my goof.

You are quite right. That was my boo-boo. I read the post to fast.

As for no connection of Greek and Sanskrit found in the Bhagavad Gîta, of course not. The Greek language had already been developed around the time the Vedas were written (or very close to it). Greek and Sanskrit (among others) have a common ancestor language called Proto-Indo-European, or PIE. Quick google should pull up all the information you could want.

Make of it what you will.

OK, so who are the linguists and anthropologists that concluded that the Sanskrit and Greek words we have discussed are linked? If you could provide the institutions they work for, it would help us all to look up their works. Please don't feel the need to make up a complete bibliography, just the few PhD's that you originally got your information from will be sufficient.

Thanks,

Z

P.S. were you able to find a source that has "Kris" as a Greek root word for anything?

[zorro]

Darkwolf.

Let me suggest a scenario and see how close I come to what really happened.

You are wandering around the Internet one day and you come across an interesting looking article on the origins of names in the NT. It sounds like it is a well researched paper and it seems to make sense. It also uses some scientific language. Then you, like thousands of others who have come across this article, accept it and repeat it on discussion boards, thinking you have the right data. You, and the thousands of others, have no idea that you are actually repeating the religious and unfounded positions of Theosophy.

So, how did I do?

Z

[DarkWolf]

Not very well, actually. As I said before, cross-referencing is done when I come across recurring themes. It would be foolish to take any single source of information at face value.

I'll admit, finding a PhD research link between Kris and Christos, or Christos and Chrisma, probably isn't going to happen. I've been looking for one, however barring that, I've been looking into the linguistics of common ancestral languages.

Linguisticly, Christos and Chrisma are more closely related than Christos and Chrio. Chrisma and Chrio share the same definition, though different connotations. Krishma and Chrisma have similar/same meanings in their respective languages, the link of both being derived from Kris is evident, from a linguistic standpoint. I suspect finding a PhD research paper on this is unlikely, due to the fact that language research is more interested in the origin of language, rather than where Christ's name came from. I can't speak for who initially concluded Christos was derived from Chrio, but linguistically, it doesn't synch. The real question becomes whether or not Chrisma is the true origin of Christos, and Chrio is accepted because it's more agreeable to Christians.

Would you happen to have any secular, unbiased, objective research on the origin of Christ's name? I would suspect no, as it's unlikely anyone doing research into this isn't Christian and/or Jewish (Messainic or otherwise), and as such there's always going to be a bias.

Mayhaps you'd have better luck discussing this further with Messainic Jews, who actually care about who/what they're worshipping, who believe that Christos is derived from Chrisma (and further, Sun worship), and not Chrio, and as such refuse to use the word Christ when referring to the Messiah. It speaks volumes as to why they don't consider themselves "Christian", even though they share the same messiah/savior.

[zorro]

Linguisticly, Christos and Chrisma are more closely related than Christos and Chrio. Chrisma and Chrio share the same definition, though different connotations. Krishma and Chrisma have similar/same meanings in their respective languages, the link of both being derived from Kris is evident, from a linguistic standpoint.

Actually, Chrisma also comes from Chrio. The orginal meaning of Chrio is to rub with oil (this is where annointing came from). Chrisma mean to smear with something. Chrio and Chrisma are both verbs and not nouns. The noun, christos (the annointed one) is derived from Chrio. Chrisma has nothing to do with Christos. Also where did you get your definition of Krishma? I couldn't even find it in any of the Sanskrit lexicons. What did your lexicon say that it meant? Which lexicon is it? Does it mean to smear as it does in the Greek?

I also couldn't find a root word of Kris in sanskit. The closest I could find meant weak or thin. What sanskit source are you using for your definition of this word. The orignal definition of Krishna is "dark." The so-called avatar was named Krishna because he was born with dark skin. This comes from the Monier Williams Sanskrit English dictionary. Look under "Krishna."

I suspect finding a PhD research paper on this is unlikely, due to the fact that language research is more interested in the origin of language, rather than where Christ's name came from. I can't speak for who initially concluded Christos was derived from Chrio, but linguistically, it doesn't synch. The real question becomes whether or not Chrisma is the true origin of Christos, and Chrio is accepted because it's more agreeable to Christians.

Once again, Christos does not mean the smeared one, but the anointed one. Therefore christos came from Chrio not Chrisma

Would you happen to have any secular, unbiased, objective research on the origin of Christ's name? I would suspect no, as it's unlikely anyone doing research into this isn't Christian and/or Jewish (Messainic or otherwise), and as such there's always going to be a bias.

Sure, any good university library will have numerous classical Greek lexicons. You will need to know someting abot Greek to use them.

Mayhaps you'd have better luck discussing this further with Messainic Jews, who actually care about who/what they're worshipping, who believe that Christos is derived from Chrisma (and further, Sun worship), and not Chrio, and as such refuse to use the word Christ when referring to the Messiah. It speaks volumes as to why they don't consider themselves "Christian", even though they share the same messiah/savior.

Why? The lexicons and dictionaries of Classical Greek, The Septuigant Greek and NT Greek are sufficient to close this matter. If you or others think that all the linguists are wrong, there is nothing I can do at that point.

Here is the origin of your information:

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, one of the founders of Theosphy, wrote a book in 1877 called Isis Unveiled. In volume 2, chapter 3, she writes:

"In the ideas of the Christians, Christ is but another name for Jesus. The philosophy of the Gnostics, the initiates, and hierophants understood it otherwise. The word Christos, like all Greek words, must be sought in its philological origin -- the Sanscrit. In this latter language Kris means sacred, and the Hindu deity was named Chris-na (the pure or the sacred) from that."

Of course there was no backing for her then either. She made it all up, and here it is still today.

Regards,

Z

[zorro]

The Sanskrit word "aindrAgna" means "sacred."

The words refering to the Sun are "abhISumat," "abjahasta," "abjabAndhava," "agira," "aharbAndhava" and "aharmaNi"

"Adideva" has reference to the first God, Brahman and the sun.

"Aditya" is anything relating to the God of the sun.

"AdityasUnu" is the son of the sun.

As you can see, none of these have anything to do with "Kris."

Source: Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon

Z

[DarkWolf]

I'll be honest, I've never heard of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, but I have heard of Isis Unveiled. Never read it though.

It may be true, the Messianic Jews are getting their information from her work ... though they claim to have been in practice for as long as Christianity. One wonders then, why all this time they've kept themselves seperate from Christians, even though the same messiah/savior is shared.

The root Kris may not be in sankrit at all, again, it is probable that it's back in the PIE language. If you look up popular names, Kris is of Scandinavian origin, which is derived from Proto-Germanic, which itself is derived from PIE. Then again, it could still be of sanskrit origin, Drisana (pronounced Krisana/Krisna) means "daughter of the sun". We could be looking in the wrong places trying to find Kris in sanskrit. I'll have to look into this some more.

[SVT93Style]

Just to jump in here since you two are grazing this topic. Isn't it so, that Christians in the begining were not even refered to as chrisitians but rather people of "The Way" and Christianity wasn't called that either but rather "The Way"

Just trying to confirm this.

[zorro]

I'll be honest, I've never heard of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, but I have heard of Isis Unveiled. Never read it though.

I did not say that you ever read Blavatsky's work, just that it seems to be the origin of this nonsense. There is no earlier reference that I could find to it. There is also no lingusitic references in any lexicon's or dictionaries. I couldn't find any and apparently you couldn't either.

It may be true, the Messianic Jews are getting their information from her work ... though they claim to have been in practice for as long as Christianity. One wonders then, why all this time they've kept themselves seperate from Christians, even though the same messiah/savior is shared.

I'm not really concerned with them. There are all sorts of little break off groups and cults that play these word games. The Jehovah's witnesses are another that say we should only use the term "Jehovah" when referring to God. They decided that the English transliteration of the latin transliteration of the Hebrew "YHWH" is the true name of God. I don't pay much attention to them either. Do you?

The root Kris may not be in sankrit at all, again, it is probable that it's back in the PIE language. If you look up popular names, Kris is of Scandinavian origin, which is derived from Proto-Germanic, which itself is derived from PIE. Then again, it could still be of sanskrit origin, Drisana (pronounced Krisana/Krisna) means "daughter of the sun". We could be looking in the wrong places trying to find Kris in sanskrit. I'll have to look into this some more.

Great I will be looking forward to the sources you use to determine this. I think you will find that the German name Kris has a christian source.

Could you please cite your source on the name Drisana?

Thanks,

Z

[zorro]

Just to jump in here since you two are grazing this topic. Isn't it so, that Christians in the begining were not even refered to as chrisitians but rather people of "The Way" and Christianity wasn't called that either but rather "The Way"

Just trying to confirm this.

Yes, you are right on this. They were first called Christians in antioch c. 50 AD - 60 AD. Prior to that it was "The way."

Regards,

Z

[DarkWolf]

Could you please cite your source on the name Drisana?

Thanks,

Z

http://www.aboutbabynames.com/hindu_baby_names.php

[zorro]

http://www.aboutbabynames.com/hindu_baby_names.php

Thank you for the reference. you do realize that people who wrie baby name books often make up the meanings of names?

Is there anything a little more scholarly?

Thanks,

Z

[DarkWolf]

Yes, though it's not just one baby name book. I'm looking more into it to find out where it originated. All I've been able to find so far, is research that can neither confirm, nor deny it's of actual Hindu origin.

[notchnate]

I THINK ALL OF YOU, ARE RIGHT!!!!! :D dont ever call each other ignorrant you guys are brilliant :p

[DarkWolf]

I'll submit, for the moment, due to preoccupation with another subject, and lack of immediate evidence (in part due to lack of effort to uncover evidence, a result of preoccupation with another subject), that Drisana may not actually be of Hindu origin.