The name of Jesus

[Thomas]

The word 'Jesus' is the Latin form of the Greek 'Iesous', which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew 'Jeshua' (or Joshua, or Jehoshua ...)

The Greek name is connected with verb 'iasthai' – 'to heal'; some of the Greek Fathers, such as Eusebius, allied the word Jesus with same root.

It was imposed by God's express order (cf Luke 1:31), to foreshow that the Child was destined to "save his people from their sins." Philo of Alexandria explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion – the 'Salvation of God'; Eusebius gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter ('Saviour'). Clement of Alexandria consided the word Iesous as of Greek origin; St. Chrysostom however emphasizes the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter, thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21).

The Hebrew name Joshua is a theophoric name. Breaking the name down, we see that there are two parts: Yeho, a theophoric reference to YHWH, the distinctive Personal Name of the God of Israel, plus a three letter root related to the noun shua. Due to disputes over how to render the word lexically, there are a number of generally accepted phrases this combination can translate to:

Yhwh saves | Yhwh (is) salvation | "Yhwh" (is) a saving-cry | Yhwh (is) my help

Biblical Hebrew Yehoshua underwent an orthographical change into the Late Biblical Hebrew form Yeshua (for example, Ezra 2:2) because of a phonological shift where guttural phonemes weakened, and late Biblical Hebrew usually shortened the traditional theophoric element Yahu at the beginning of a name to Yo-, and at the end to -yah. In Yoshua, it palatized to Yeshua. This shortened Hebrew name was common – the Hebrew Bible mentions ten individuals called by it – and was also adopted by Aramaic- and Greek-speaking Jews.

By the time the New Testament was written, the Septuagint had already transliterated Yeshua into Koine Greek as closely as possible in the 3rd-century BCE, the result being Iesous. Where Greek has no equivalent of the semitic letter 'shin' [sh], it was replaced with a sigma (s), and a masculine singular ending (-s) was added. The Greek writings of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus frequently mention this name.

From Greek, Iesous moved into Latin. The morphological jump this time was not as large as previous changes between language families. Iesous was transliterated to Latin IESVS, where it stood for many centuries. The Latin name has an irregular declension, with a genitive, dative, ablative, and vocative of Jesu, accusative of Jesum, and nominative of Jesus. Minuscule (lower case) letters were developed around 800 and some time later the U was invented to distinquish the vowel sound from the consonantal sound V, and the J to distinguish the consonant from I (thus the 'J' can be seen as an I with an accent 'built-in').

Near the end of Middle English, the vowels changed during the Great Vowel Shift in the 15th century, and the letter J was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century. As such we can see that such works as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 continued to print the name with an I.

Finally, after thousands of years and several languages later, the name finally came to rest as the Modern English "Jesus".

Thomas
(content drawn from wiki & Catholic Encyclopedia)

[Thomas]

Hi Chris –

... Is Christianity essentially an adaptation, or evolution of Greek thought with the Jewish parts added as a syncretic component, or is the opposite true?

My course director, a man fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Ugaritic(!) told me at the very outset of my studies:
"The heritage of Christianity is twofold, the first is Revelation as Salvation History in the Hebrew Tradition, the second is in the resoned philosophical reflection upon that Revelation in the Greek Tradition."

The Greek language gave the Jews a lexicon and a language system that they did not possess – Hebrew as a language had moved along a different line, and it allowed them a new way of looking and a new way of investigating the Divine ... I'm going to post on the Philosophy forum 'cos' it's way off topic here, but it's to do with myth and metaphor and the transmission and transference of experience and meaning ...

Generally, in light of this thread, I would say that whilst the Greek Iesous belongs to a different world than the Hebrew Jeshoua, it would be erronoeus I think, considering the evidence, to assume that the Greeks would try and equate the name of Zeus, or any of the pantheon of gods ... the Fathers of the Church who formulated Christian Doctrine were all philosophers in their own right who no longer relied on Olympus as a means of approaching the Absolute.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Thank you Thomas.

This goes a long way towards shedding light on the subject.

[InLove]

Wow. Thank you Thomas for expounding on the evolution of language in this area, as well as touching on the differences in philosophy. I find myself pondering how these ideas so greatly influence the different schools of thought even today, not only within and between Judaism and Christianity, but among the various sects and denominations as well.

InPeace,
InLove

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

The "Greek Hero-god" was no less a realization, by the initiates of the Mystery Tradition, of what many an early Christian - the Gnostics, for example ... also the Jewish Essenes - has come to understand as Christ Jesus. Except that the "*earthly* powers that be" have indeed contrived. The case has been made elsewhere; I only call attention to the recognition, by many, that Christianity is one realization among many, unique in some ways, but not a precedent in proclaiming a Messiah, or "God's Son(s)."

I have no major problem *historically* with your assessment (although I do think some connections are a stretch...the Essenes, for instance). *Philosophically*, there are some major issues to resolve. Your position presupposes that Jesus in the role of a pagan messiah is a factual / truthful role, when it could just as easily be that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and that everything he represented was usurped into a greater politically manufactured crowd controlling cattle prod.

Your position presupposes Yashua was "just another" in a string of clone "g-d puppets" when the reality is probably far, far more simple than that. Your position presupposes that as a "g-d puppet" Jesus was fulfilling a multiple prophetic role when there is no evidence beyond speculation to suggest anything of the sort (and quite a bit of anti-Semitic undercurrent to stifle any open attempt to do so in the pagan world of his day and after). In short, your position demands an awful lot of supposition...supposition I for one am not willing to concede to without better supporting anecdotal evidence.

Pointing to a spurious religious text to support a religious POV is a rather counter-productive appeal to authority. Ask anybody involved in the creation / evolution debate about quoting the Bible in defense against laboratory demonstration. What your position presupposes is not at all unlike that very issue, asking that others believe on faith that Christ is one of a line of Christs that reach back some how many millions? of years, and then quoting a quasi-religious text in support? Regardless of how many ascended masters wrote the thing, we are effectively talking past each other in a battle of "my text" versus "your text." Regardless of intent, we are not saying the same thing even when using identical words. In summary, your "Jesus" is not my "Jesus."

My Jesus at least has an historic and anthropological factual basis, rather than a collection of apparitions speaking though a self-proclaimed channel who may just as easily have been leading people on a wild goose chase. Kinda hard to peer review a ghost, especially one whose "familiar" human could invent things on the fly without concern for confirmation. A familiar who could, and I suggest would, dismiss any challenge with a perfunctory wave of the hand rather than any genuine logical recourse.

Oh, did I tell you, I have a spirit of a long dead medicine man who channels through me? And he says Bailey, Blavatsky, et al, are fakes. But what do I know?

I have the text of the Old and New Testaments, in combination with my own personal spiritual journey, complemented by scientific, historical and anthropological supports. I have non-religious people like Josephus supporting my view in part. I have peer review by learned scholars, and am open to more. I have questions, not answers, precisely because the simple (and fraudulent) answers have already been considered. In my mind, this beats some woman hearing voices in her head any day of the week. But that's just me.

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

dismiss any challenge with a perfunctory wave of the hand

I believe this is what just took place.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

spurious religious text

You may so judge it, if you like.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

your "Jesus" is not my "Jesus."

If you insist ... in which case I would have it no other way.

I think I begin to understand, through my own trial and error, To know, to dare, to will ... to be silent. I messed up on one of these.

Ah well, I asked for it, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Thanks anyway.

~Zag

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Oh, did I tell you, I have a spirit of a long dead medicine man who channels through me? And he says Bailey, Blavatsky, et al, are fakes. But what do I know?

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.

[InLove]

Hi Everyone--

I would just like to interject something from my heart, if I might. It isn't very complicated.

Zagreus--don't be so hard on yourself. If I am not mistaken, what you preach (and you do preach ) is peace between people, right? You want folks to come together. From my perspective, it seems that you really, really want everyone to see things the way you do, because it works for you. You have seen something, and it is hard to explain. Orthodox anything does not fit. I can sometimes see what you are saying, and while I can't exactly embrace every bit of it, I still see your heart's desire. My advice, for what it is worth--and my apology if it isn't that much--is to concentrate on sharing what you know can be understood, and leave the rest up to the listener. If what you have to say has merit, it will grow.

Juan, I have been quietly trying to learn about the concepts in Judaism for some time now. What a lot to take in, especially for someone like me. I was raised in a Protestant Christian tradition, and now I understand that I have basically not understood my Old Testament at all??? Well, I still have a deep desire to comprehend, but it will likely take me the rest of my life! Imagine....

And Catholicism? I have always just thought that Catholics were Christians like me, only they have some traditions I don't have. But no--it comes down to some real issues of theology, and I admit I have to look up almost as many words in this area as I do when trying to understand Judaism.

(Edit: I don't mean that I think Catholics are not Christian. Just want to be clear there....)

So what is left? I don't agree with everything I have always been taught. But in my heart and in my spirit, I am joined with something much greater than myself. This spirit tells me that Jesus was most definitely Jewish, but that his message and love was for everyone, including those with a bit of the Pagan influence or history or whatever.

I will keep on reading, and I will keep on trying to understand what others believe, and I will keep on looking up on the words, guys. I am glad that there are folks like y'all who have the ability to explain this stuff. But I still think that if I were to learn it all, I might still come up with the same conclusion. That I really just don't know anything except that which I am given to know!

InPeace,
InLove

[China Cat Sunflower]

Juan,

I want to ask you a non-rhetorical question. What do you make of the Logos concept introduced in John's Gospel? This seems an obvious tipping point toward the Greek conception of the Christ. Are these concepts: Logos and Christ, an example of the usurpation you're speaking of?

Chris

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I want to ask you a non-rhetorical question. What do you make of the Logos concept introduced in John's Gospel? This seems an obvious tipping point toward the Greek conception of the Christ. Are these concepts: Logos and Christ, an example of the usurpation you're speaking of?

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.

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by InLove

Zagreus--don't be so hard on yourself. If I am not mistaken, what you preach (and you do preach ) is peace between people, right? You want folks to come together. From my perspective, it seems that you really, really want everyone to see things the way you do, because it works for you. You have seen something, and it is hard to explain. Orthodox anything does not fit. I can sometimes see what you are saying, and while I can't exactly embrace every bit of it, I still see your heart's desire. My advice, for what it is worth--and my apology if it isn't that much--is to concentrate on sharing what you know can be understood, and leave the rest up to the listener. If what you have to say has merit, it will grow.

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.

There has been so much emphasis, of late, at CR, on the past, on history, and now - on the evolution of Jesus' NAME. I sometimes become much too engrossed in a topic, or in just one side, angle, or facet of an issue ... and lose perspective, so one of the things that is helpful about what you say, InLove, is that it allows me more easily disengage. Thank you, for that.

I fear that I have responded, quite like a sucker, to a word, an idea, and that very personality ... whom and which has a certain magnetism for many of us, yet it somehow still manages to get the better of me at times. A year or so ago, I did not hestitate to say, `Yeshua ben Joseph' or `the Nazarene' ... in an effort to help me distinguish, just personally, between the Jesus of 2000 years ago ... and the Christ.

These two, for me, are as different as Juan and myself, or you and I. I think between what I shared - based on my own researches, meditations, findings and experience, what Thomas has shared from similar sources, the discussion from juan, Chris, yourself, and all other folks ... there's a lot been said that helps cast light on the evolution of the name, `Jesus' - and how we get this spelling and pronunciation, relative to how it was said 2000 years ago.

But is this all we're looking at? If the question is, was Jesus a Jew? ... then I'm not sure how much of that even could be up for discussion. Perhaps Jesus was also an Essene; I maintain that he was, while Thomas is not inclined along these same lines. I think Jesus left the Essene community because he fulfilled his purpose there, and also because he had certain differences. Not simply differences of opinion, or belief, as any two of us here may have. I think the Essenes shared all they could with Jesus, prepared him as best they were able, and that as Jesus the man began to mature, he had likewise offered the Essenes all that they were capable of receiving, all that they were ready to hear. So he set out, a wandering Therapeute (Healer) ... and traveled.

I smile (if I remember to keep my wits about me) when people clamor to disprove the notion that Jesus traveled Eastward, as far - say - as India, Tibet, Kashmir. Maybe he went to Egypt, Greece, as well as the Far East. Some will say, there was no Buddhism, but he didn't go to become a Buddhist. The Himalayan Branch of the Lodge of Masters far predates what we know of in the West as Buddhism.

Even with my wits about me, I become a little disheartened, a little saddened, when people say things like, "The religions will never agree, they will never resolve their differences, there CANNOT be resolution between them - after all, they disagree on so many points, etc." And especially when those who KNOW better - having at least done SOME research - say things like, "Theosophy is purely syncretic; it is an effort to combine various philosophies into one, and force a fit artificially."

I would expect this, InLove, if you will please pardon me for using you as an example ... from YOU! From anyone who has not looked into what the Theosophists believe, what women like Blavatksy, or Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich, and others have taught. You have even said, a time or two, that you weren't sure what a typical Theosophist believes - or something along these lines. Thus, if you misunderstood and thought that esotericists are engaged in some kind of effort to do away with religious differences, intentionally overlooking what is unique, and especially helpful from each individual faith tradition ... ah well, I would understand!!!

Yet, what we find, is that you, InLove, even without having read article after article, or all manner of commentary on things like Theosophical teachings, are a better peacemaker, and understand the whole point of them ... than those who ARE familiar - or at least who claim to be. Funny, isn't it, how those who SLAM Blavatsky have not taken the time to actually READ what she wrote ... to study it in depth, or in the VERY LEAST - to take a few of the most important, prominent ideas, and PONDER THEM.

No, it's not funny ... for this is exactly what it means to prejudge. Or to allow rumor, gossip, hearsay, slander, false accusation, FALSE WITNESS - in short - to cloud our judgment. Forgive me, please, for my rant; it is just that I am seeing on a handful of threads at CR, that people DO NOT really want to get along. People would rather sow discord, or else water this weed when they see it spring forth.

Someone posts on another thread an example of some common beliefs among the worlds various religions. No one said that differences weren't valid, valuable. No one said, Buddhists must forsake the Tripitaka and embrace Deism/Theism. No one said, forsake your own spiritual path, and choose to walk that of another, or one that is less meaningful to you. What was posted, was simply a beautiful example of some of the common teachings, amongst the world's great religions.

I do not know who the poster was/is. It was not me, or anyone here under another handle, that I am aware of. My jaw almost dropped, however, when I saw how quickly this person was POUNCED on. I am ASHAMED.

Christ comes to remove these kind of differences, and life the veil of our misunderstandings ... NOT further entrench us in our little, human camps - based on outworn ideologies, separative attitudes, self-righteous mindsets, and unwillingness to cooperate. Yeah, I go overboard plenty often, I come off sounding enlightened, what-have-you, I know. I know. What I ALSO do, as often as I can, is try to just say, Please pardon my error, and FORGIVE this ... and see past it long enough not to miss the point.

Thanks, InLove, for helping. My 101 Danish friend, with whom I studied (esoteric teaching) earlier tonight, reminded me, as you have, that we are trying. And she spoke beautifully, as she always does, this time of being acolytes for Christ ... and the very slow, but definite process, whereby we may learn to be Christ-LIKE. This is a difficult, even dangerous concept. It is so, so very easy to misunderstand, and to run away with, such that even she - who knows me well - was careful to say, that we have a LONG way to go ... yet this is the GOAL.

I feel that one of the saddest things we could possibly do ... is to confuse the Christ, Who is the Lord of Love, with any ONE MAN (or person) ... for even the most loving man who comes to my mind (my pastor of childhood), was as yet perhaps far from the spiritual attainment of a Jesus, much less the Christ.

But the Christ Presence, as a very real energy, or Force, has always been present upon our planet, ever since Humanity's arrival here - if not also before (since there is a similar function, or presence, relative to all lesser kingdoms - the animal, vegetable, mineral). This, somehow, I just KNOW.

My studies tell me that, whether or not we are tracing the previous incarnations of the exact same Individuality, or Avatar, nevertheless, there have always been Divine Representatives, Incarnations, of the 2nd Aspect of Godhead ... upon planet Earth. This predates Atlantis, and Theosophists list Vyasa, Zoroaster, Thoth-Hermes and Orpheus (prior incarnations of Shakyamuni Buddha) as earlier holders of the `Office' of Christ. This fascinates me, and I have studied a little of each of these figures, yet more so the spiritual motifs, the zodaical backdrop, and the idea of spiritual Liberation - or Salvation - which surrounded each of these figures.

Sri Krishna, from India, is listed as an earlier incarnation (or expression) of the Christ, such that a distinction is made, in terms of the Individuality who is reincarnating, between Christ and Buddha. Edgar Cayce entertwines these, and even lists the Joshuas and Jeshuas as the same individual. Yet when the Master Jesus enters in, a third soul is under consideration ... if I am not mistaken. The simple notion that three or four of sequential incarnations were ALL amongst the Jewish people, with precisely the same Name ... is in & of itself, a source of much fascination for me. Why would this be?

And I have observed the pattern in several other cases, where I believe I have had insight into prior births (NOT things I have read; mostly things that have just come to me). Again, why would this be?

I don't know, it's all very fascinating, but I think if it doesn't speak to us on some individual, personal level, then we are right to push it aside ... and seek answers that do satisfy. If the sketches of David Anrias do not resonate, but those of Del Parson do, then we should use what works. It seems to me, that if the SLIGHTEST of the hoopla and fanfare, which the vast majority of evangelicals preach (I have plenty of 6th ray, I know, I know) ... is true, then we are quite remiss if we carry on as if Jesus of Nazareth is up there somewhere, out of touch with the world today.

I think he probably has an interest in forums and discussion boards like this one, if not this very one (and who knows) ... because his work, more so even than the vast majority of the Masters, has everything to do with (Western) religion, esp. Christianity, and with preparing the way for the Christ. The Reappearance, it seems to me, is not something way out in terms of time-frame; it is immiment. So Christ, too, Who is for me a Planetary Avatar ... may also, have an interest in something like CR. He works, after all, through GROUPS ... say the esotericists, and those who speak of Aquarius & Aquarian energies.




I suppose I'm such a damn dramatist that I really wouldn't know what he meant ... but I do feel, at least at the moment, that I have an inkling of what the Master J. was saying, in Vision of the Nazarene, where we read:

My soul was a veritable target for the spears of baneful thoughts that were hurled at Me.

God's Prophets, one in particular, has been an especial magnet for such barbs and jabs ... and if I have gone out of my way to defend her (and her Sister Torchbearers for the Cause), then it is because I know whereof I speak, and because I have found Wisdom, Love, and Strength - both in the Timeless Truths which she/they have helped to bring to the modern world, and also in her devotion, her commitment to her Teachers.

Every Master has his garden. He receives his students there, if they are ready to seek him. I sometimes just want to say to people, Yes, Jesus is real, and a beautiful, amazing Presence (Cyril Scott calls him `Great One,' `Radiant One,' and `Shining One') - with an amazing human form, when need be, and otherwise, a direct expression of the Divine. And so, likewise, are the other Masters, some of Whom we can name, others Who must preserve their anonymity. Yet Christ is Lord of all, and if we would serve Him, we must first learn to serve the Master, and the Ashram. If we would do this, then we must first learn to serve the Soul - the Master within, the true Master of our Life. To serve the soul, means to serve Humanity, for the soul indwells every human form. To be "first," we must be "last."

I think that what really needs "preaching" is not just that Christ and His Church are on the way, but that we must prepare for Them. This is the work of the Forerunner, yet I don't think many people really imagine what it might be like ... if Christ actually came back to Earth, with His group of Masters, and stayed. People want to be swept away, taken up into the cloud of glory with Christ, and relieved of all their earthly burdens.

What I have learned, is that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be established on Earth ... through Humanity, and with Humanity's cooperation - NOT DESPITE Humanity, or FOR Humanity.

It's unpopular to say this, sometimes ... and there is ever a pendulum swinging one way or the other, with respect to dualities ... but as it has come to rest squarely within my being at this time, I have said what I have said.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, InLove; after yours, and that of my study partner, I think I'll give myself yet a third ... and keep in mind the significance of those gathered in Christ's name.

The keynote of the disciple, for Aquarius: Water of life am I, poured forth for thirsty men.

Love and Light to all,

~zagreus

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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]

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

....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!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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.