Enoch:
Just let me place a footnote on this subject for further thought and discussion if you want. Not required of course...Yes, there are many places of information in reference, in Books and on the internet that casually state that Jesus is derived for Joshua. It is really not true I’m afraid. And yes, Joshua does mean ‘YAH saves’ as you said because it is derived from Yeshua..etc.
These misdirected main-stream folks, draw from the same spoiled well of truth, claiming a direct relationship. However, they can never show their ‘work.’ They cannot show you the direct relationship because there is none. It just ‘sounds’ true and no one questions it.
Yes, Joshua, as an English world is a derivation of the intended Hebrew meaning Yeshua or YAH saves, as you pointed out. However, Jesus is derived strictly for the common Greek and then early Latin languages of ‘Iesous.’ The Greek and Latin never even used the form for the Hebrew Yeshua to later develop the English word, Joshua into their translations. If this were the case, you should have these Greek and Latin words today; they are missing. If they created them then you could say that the word Jesus is derived for a Greek and Latin world for Joshua/Yeshua. They just never gave Yeshua a corresponding native word.
And as you said, Bibles should have kept the Hebrew for the Son of God and even God Almighty.
Acts 7:45 speaks of the son of Nun, Joshua, not the Greek/Latin word Iesous for Jesus. The major Catholic (DR) and Protestant (KJV) Bibles inserted the wrong name, Jesus. About 60 percent of the Bibles today however have it right and keep the Hebrew derivation, Joshua. The same error is found in Heb 4:8
And from a couple of ‘reliable’ reference sources…there are many more of course
Encyclopedia Americana:
"Jesus Christ--- ...Although Matthew (1:21) interprets the name originally Joshua, that is, 'Yahweh is Salvation,' and finds it specially appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, it was a common one at that time." (Vol.16, p. 41)
Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.)
"Jesus Christ---...The same is true of the name Jesus. In the Septuagint it is the customary Greek form for the common Hebrew name Joshua;" (Vol. 10 p.149)
They just went ahead and used the word Jesus as being the same as Joshua because they found it appropriate and that is was customary in the Greek, then in English of course, to use it. When all the ‘dust’ settles down, with all the neat rationale that is presented, this is essentially their bare-bones basis of truth – an empty bucket with a hole at its base.
Ie-sous means ‘Hail Zeus’ in Greek, and the Romans followed suit with it. There is no way getting around this fact. Joshua saves by its Hebrew origin and meaning, Jesus does not by its original Greek form.
You know the Romanists and the Greeks did not take kindly to the Judeans/Jews in the early centuries. And pagan ideas were prevalent. It is logical then why they threw out the Hebrew word of salvation and brought in their own god for the purpose of bringing salvation to the pagans. They took to it likes honey to a bee.
Here are some Greek words that you may also be familiar with:
Tarsus means the sweat of Zeus
Dionysus means the son of Zeus
Jesus means Hail Zeus
For another discussion, the English word ‘God’ is also a pagan derivation as well…….
Bless you,
APAK
Last edited:
