Read more at FriendlyAtheist.com
Dante Shepherd at Surviving the World tells the truth:
Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.
You know what my mom would say? It’s all about intent –He knows what/who you meant in your heart. LOL
If only she knew what I really felt in my heart. She’d vomit. lol
Vomit… or just gag? Haw haw haw.
Credit where credit’s due: http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson579.html
Updated the post to reflect that. Thanks!
Calling him Joshua (or Josh) is just as wrong as calling him Jesus. Also, the ancient Judeans didn’t have hereditary surnames. In conclusion, Dante Shepherd is an idiot.
What Dante is saying is: Hebrew–>English (Yeshua–>Joshua) is more accurate than Hebrew–>Greek–>English (Yeshua–>Iesous–>Jesus)
Sorta the same as one of the reasons there’s a billion different versions of the bible. Different paths of translation, different meanings.
No. Read the picture. He never claims that Jesus had a last name or that you should call him Joshua, only that Joshua is the English version of his name. You should not throw stones when you live in a glass idiot.
Jesus probably spoke Greek, so it’s possible that he sometimes used a Greek name. However, he certainly didn’t speak English and never used an English name.
The picture says”But his name wasn’t Josh Christ, either, since his parents weren’t Joseph and Mary Christ.” Which seems to imply that, not only did they use surnames, but that married women took their husbands’ names.
Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. It’s his later fan club that spoke Greek.
Greek was the administrative language of that part of the Roman empire, so it’s likely that it was his second or third language.
do you speak a second and third language? why would you assume a poor carpenter nobody in an outlying middle eastern province would’ve? and it’s dubious to claim that greek was the administrative language of the *roman* empire. dood, latin had been around for a long time by the year 0. i am not a scholar of greek, but i’d love to see you back that claim up. it seems really doubtful to me, given the latin i’ve read from around these times.
Greek was the administrative language of the _eastern_ part of the empire because that area had used Greek administratively since Alexander’s conquests a few centuries before (Cleopatra and the other Ptolemies spoke Greek natively). The Romans needed that administration (they were highly dependent on grain shipped from Egypt) and did not look down on the Greek language (educated Romans had learned Greek as a second language for centuries because it was the language of scholarship) so they kept it. If writing back to Rome, they would use Latin but internally in the Eastern provinces, Greek.
I know wikipedia isn’t the best source for reliable data, but it’s handy. So for those of you who wish to display grotesque ignorance of one of the most basic facts of the ancient eastern mediteranean, often referred to as the “HELLENISTIC WORLD” (ie greek speaking) :
“Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and Near East throughout the Roman period.”
Not only that, but the word “Christ” comes from the Greek “Christos” which is just Greek for Messiah (or anointed one). Christos was anglicized as Christ. So it’s really “Josh the anointed one.”
The reason it derives from Greek is because the gospels were written in Greek, most likely by Greeks. This means that the name of the Christian religion is derived directly from the fact that the primary sources for the key events (miracles, resurrection) in Jesus life were not there when they happened. Rather embarrasing for them, you’d think.
Unfortunately u have it all wrong.yes the gospels were written in Greek but what was called koine Greek which was the language of trade through the region. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic with family and friends Hebrew in the synagogue and Greek in the market places.
They were written by people who were there at the time and many of the events were also written about by historians of the day such as Josephus and seutonius amongst others
All of the gospels were written 30+ years after the death of Jesus; the lifetime of an average dude in Jesus’ time was around 40 years.
Also, two significant passages where Josephus mentions Jesus as being a “Savior” have been identified as forgeries by Christians down the line – they aren’t his (Josephus’) original wording. AAAAAND Josephus’ writings were dated about 100 years after Jesus’ death.
Bit tricky for Josephus to have written stuff after his own death in about 100CE. Also only one of the passages in Josephus is considered an interpolation (or a major modification) and only that one called him ‘christ’. The other one say he was called christ not that he was (this might or might not be an interpolation possibly by accident and if it is an interpolation though the Jesus might be a different Jesus).
Also though the average life span was about 40 or less one has to take into account the huge mortality rate for children. If you made it to 20, you had a reasonably good chance of living beyond 40 (and quite possibly to 70; Josephus lived until his early 60s). Josephus certainly knew people alive at the time that Jesus preached and he was writing about that time and place so he is very good evidence that Jesus or Christians did not make a big impact immediately or for some time after (which fits in with Christianity being a small sect for decades).
You’re right; I have been mislead! (I have been reading The Case for Christ at the request of my mother…there is some so much misinformation in the book that I am having trouble keeping it all straight).
It looks like The Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus was written in A.D. 94 – still some 60 years after the death of Christ (and he was a faithful Jew, which was what gave rise to the suspicion that he would have called Jesus “Christ” and speak of him fulfilling Jewish prophecies in the first place).
Jesus and his followers spoke Greek? Really? You’re going to provide a citation for that, of course?
Yes, they spoke Greek. Why are you surprised? http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
Easier to digest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts
The New Testament was written in Greek, but I think the language of the time setting was Aramaic, which is a dead language now. However, Hebrew was widely used, which is what I thought the people of that era (the setting of the story) spoke. However, it was not Greek they spoke.
Not according to your link. There is nothing in there that even suggests that Jesus or his followers spoke Greek.
Thanks for wasting my time.
It never fails to amaze me how much religious believers are prepared to just make stuff up to support their position. It’s uncontroversial and accepted by most biblical scholars that the earliest gospel (Mark, IIRC) was written about 40 years after Jesus’s death, and so the gospel authors were not by any stretch eye witnesses to the purported events described. The gospels were also written in Greek (hence “Christos”), a language not spoken by Jesus or his close followers, but then this isn’t especially controversial or surprising either, since we already know that the gospel authors were not eye witnesses and therefore not any of Jesus’s close circle. When I mention this simple fact, I get a believer such as Davidg777 saying, no yur rong, Jesus did too speak Greek. Of course, no one can back up this absurd claim, but they don’t withdraw it either.
As I wrote before, name of the Christian religion is derived directly from the fact that the primary sources for the key events (miracles, resurrection) in Jesus life were not there when they supposedly happened. It’s really not that important, but I still find it amusing. I did say you’d think that this would be rather embarrassing for Christians, but I guess not if they’re able to just blithely deny the facts (no no, Jesus spoke Greek, really, and the gospels were written by all these Greek speakers who were there at the time.) Must be great not to be bound by inconvenient things like facts when making arguments.
I love it, Hemant. Good one! Thanks for sharing it.
using the lord’s name as a swear word isn’t using it in vain though. So even if his name really was “Jesus Christ” saying that name when you stub your toe or see something shocking isn’t saying his name in vain. As Ricky Gervais explaines…
‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’I never do. But let me explain something. Most people think that The Third Commandment means that they shouldn’t use his name as a swear word… The commandment could equally be, You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in “vanity” e.g. when your enemy is hurt or defeated saying, “that’s God’s wrath,” or when you win an award saying, “thank God.” This is using his name in vanity. It’s suggesting that you KNOW that God helped you win that award because you deserved it more, or because he was on your side.
‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’
I never do. But let me explain something. Most people think that The Third Commandment means that they shouldn’t use his name as a swear word… The commandment could equally be, You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in “vanity” e.g. when your enemy is hurt or defeated saying, “that’s God’s wrath,” or when you win an award saying, “thank God.” This is using his name in vanity. It’s suggesting that you KNOW that God helped you win that award because you deserved it more, or because he was on your side.
How many GOP candidates claim “god told me to run”?
Many do that but I always have to ask. How do they know it’s God talking to them? Couldn’t it be SATAN? The great deceiver? Maybe that’s why so many of the GOP lie so much.
One missing detail: He ALSO didn’t exist. Nothing but fantasy and fiction, for Christ’s sake.
What was Joseph’s last name?
Carpenter. Well, maybe Orgnd.
His middle name is still Haploid, though, right?
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” is not so much a prohibition against cussing as it is a warning not to enter into covenants lightly. For example, when you are baptized in Christianity, you covenant to take upon yourself the name of Jesus Christ. You should not be baptized and take that name if you do not intend to uphold your part of the covenant (lifelong discipleship). That is the prohibition.
Since “Jesus Christ” is the Messiah’s name in English, it’s proper to adopt that name. As long as you mean the man who walked on water and died on the cross.
As for using the name as a swear, that is prohibited because it is profanity: using a sacred thing for vile purposes.
I have walked on water hundreds and hundreds of times. Does this make me the daughter of your god?
That’s not what makes you a daughter of God, no.
Let me try this game.
“Peter the Great” never existed. Firstly, his name wasn’t Peter. It was Pyotr. And it wasn’t even written in Latin characters but something called “Cyrillic”.
Secondly, his last name was NOT Great. Why do people think this? His mom and dad weren’t Mr. and Mrs. Great.
Don’t even get me started about Julius H. Caesar.
Well said, Curtis. And Confucius was really 孔子. I’m not sure why the fellow at the blackboard thinks he’s so clever.
But he wasn’t really 孔子 either, since 子 is just a title and his mom and dad weren’t Mr. and Mrs. 子.
I don’t see anywhere on the board a claim that Jesus didn’t exist.
Oh, God… LOL
Let devil donot use you please! God loved the world that is why you have Jesus Christ,don’t play with name JESUS CHRIST demons donot dare even to mention it.
I think it’s more about the intent of one’s own heart, not a technicality in language translation.
saw this on reddit. pretty good pic
Got to say…
I am a Christian, but I read Friendly Atheist from time to time to see what you’re saying and to think about things. You actually live to the name “Friendly,” which is nice. But this repost doesn’t make sense, coming from someone you.
Dante’s words are ahistorical, ignore the philology of names (that a earlier Hebrew name – with theological and practical significance could be Hellenized into an actual name later… Jesus wasn’t the only person named “Jesus” in those days), ignorant to historical titles (aka, “Christ” as being a figure to which the Jewish people were looking – and of which the scriptures never state “his name is Jesus last-name-Christ”), and genuinely unprofitable in allowing helpful dialogue to happen on both sides.
There are many critiques in your blog’s history that I have found challenging and needful for consideration. But don’t stoop to this level. This is the stuff of discord that only avails angry/snide responses from both sides.
That said, thank you for still being a “friendly atheist.”
All the best! a friendly christian
I apologize for the grammatical mistakes. I was typing this while on the phone with an insurance company.
The thing of it is, the pic is right. However, for my studies and research at university and other sources, I don’t believe Jesus ever existed and the story is just rewritten mythology, set to a specific culture. This isn’t just my views, but some theologians and scholars have admitted such.
I believe The Lord Jesus Christ is God, The Son of God, and The Messiah; as clearly taught in The Bible. The stakes are too high to be wrong about this.
JESUS CHRIST ON A STICK!!!! Good info here!!!
I thought his middle name was Fucking? You know, Jesus Fucking Christ!
A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.
Sign up for free newsletters and special offers
Follow Patheos on