The Name "Jesus"

[Jerome]

Why do so many Christians refer to Jesus Christ merely as "Jesus"? The name "Jesus" by itself reflects a historical fact, but misses a theological truth. There have been many Jesus. Jesus Christ was THE "Jesus" or "savior."

Moses servant Joshua is called "Jesus" and one of the High Priests in the Old Testament is called "Jesus." To merely refer to Our Divine Lord, Our Blessed Savior, Our Redeemer, the Savior of the World, the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, as "Jesus" seems to show a lack of faith in Christianity's most fundamental truth.

Did you ever notice at the Last Supper that 11 of the Apostles call Our Blessed Savior "Lord," but one calls Him "Rabbi." Guess which one? You got it! Judas Iscariot. Both Jews and Muslims refer to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity as "Jesus." As St. Paul observed, it is only in the Spirit that we call Him Lord.

How sad that so many Christians today have stopped calling Him Jesus Christ, or Our Lord Jesus, or some other term that conveys the theological belief connected with the historical name. Perhaps, some Christians are tacitly admitting that they never thought He was the Christ to begin with.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Jerome,

I wouldn't go as far as your last statement, but I do agree that people think of him so lovingly and happily that they have got him somewhat mixed up with Santa. Paul says that we can call the Father "Daddy", but considering that Paul never does it once suggests to me that we are able to be completely familiar with him one on one, but in showing him before the world and even to other Christians, we should represent him more fully. He is "Daddy" because he is first and foremost "Lord".

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

It's funny since becoming Catholic (I swear this isn't a dig at Protestants), I have called him Jesus much less. I tend to use Lord, Our Savior, Christ, and such.

But good points Jerome, and welcome to CF here are some blessings.

 

[wonderflex]

I'm sorry that I have to agree with the fact that I don't see anything wrong with simply saying, "Jesus." I look at it this way, it's about being right in motives, not right in actions. Everybody I know, and anybody I come accross would know what I mean when I speak of Jesus. He is my savior. In my heart, Jesus knows who He is to me. I could call Him, "Lord Jesus," all I want, but if my heart wasn't into it, then what good would it be? By this same standard though we should never simply say, "God," because there are many religions out there that use that name. Also, we should never say that we are led by "the Spirit," for there are many religions that use the word, "spirit," as well. See, the main problem here is by your thinking you are reverting us back to a legalistic system.

 

[Anthony]

Moses servant Joshua is called "Jesus" and one of the High Priests in the Old Testament is called "Jesus."

Interesting? Can you give the scripture references from the Old Testament where the name Jesus is used?

 

[Philip]

Interesting? Can you give the scripture references from the Old Testament where the name Jesus is used?

Jesus is the English transliteration of Iosus, which is the Greek transliteration of Yashua, the Aramaic name of Jesus. Joshua is the English transliteration of Yashua. Joshua and Jesus are the same names, just like John and Juan are the same.

 

[Pentheus]

Why do so many Christians refer to Jesus Christ merely as "Jesus"? The name "Jesus" by itself reflects a historical fact, but misses a theological truth.

Actually, the name "Jesus" doesn't "miss a theological truth". In fact, the Greek translation of the name does quite the opposite. You see, every letter in the ancient Greek alphabet had a number value attached to it. Therefore, individual Greek words could be understood to express a number by adding up the values of the letters in the word. And certain numbers were considered more "pure" or "sacred" than others. This is the basis of gematria, which Greek philosophers considered to be a sacred science.
Now, the name of Jesus was transliterated into Greek in a slightly different way than all the other Joshuas; specifically, it was written as Iesous. Not the most natural transliteration, but one with a point to it. As Irenaeus noted, "Iesous is a name arithmetically symbolical, consisting of six letters, as is known by all those that belong to the called." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 1.14.4) Specifically, it expresses the number 888:

I = 10
E = 8
S = 200
O = 70
U = 400
S = 200

10 + 8+ 200+ 70+ 400+ 200 = 888

Now, the ancient Greeks considered 888 to be a highly sacred and magical number. One reason was the fact that if all 24 letters of the Greek alphabet are added together, they also express the number 888. The Christian sage Origen boasted that the name Iesous possessed more divine efficacy than the names of the Pagan divinities, which he obviously could not have said if the same Greek name also applied to every Joshua herding sheep in Judea!
There are good reasons why Jesus was said to possess "a name above all names". Not only does the name NOT "miss the theological point", for those with the "eyes to see" it practically drives the theological point home with a sledgehammer!

-Pentheus-

 

[Jerome]

Why do so many Christians refer to Jesus Christ merely as "Jesus"? The name "Jesus" by itself reflects a historical fact, but misses a theological truth.

Actually, the name "Jesus" doesn't "miss a theological truth". In fact, the Greek translation of the name does quite the opposite. You see, every letter in the ancient Greek alphabet had a number value attached to it. Therefore, individual Greek words could be understood to express a number by adding up the values of the letters in the word. And certain numbers were considered more "pure" or "sacred" than others. This is the basis of gematria, which Greek philosophers considered to be a sacred science.
Now, the name of Jesus was transliterated into Greek in a slightly different way than all the other Joshuas; specifically, it was written as Iesous. Not the most natural transliteration, but one with a point to it. As Irenaeus noted, "Iesous is a name arithmetically symbolical, consisting of six letters, as is known by all those that belong to the called." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 1.14.4) Specifically, it expresses the number 888:

I = 10
E = 8
S = 200
O = 70
U = 400
S = 200

10 + 8+ 200+ 70+ 400+ 200 = 888

Now, the ancient Greeks considered 888 to be a highly sacred and magical number. One reason was the fact that if all 24 letters of the Greek alphabet are added together, they also express the number 888. The Christian sage Origen boasted that the name Iesous possessed more divine efficacy than the names of the Pagan divinities, which he obviously could not have said if the same Greek name also applied to every Joshua herding sheep in Judea!
There are good reasons why Jesus was said to possess "a name above all names". Not only does the name NOT "miss the theological point", for those with the "eyes to see" it practically drives the theological point home with a sledgehammer!

-Pentheus-

But using the name "Jesus" in the sense you use it, and in the sense Origin used it, is to refer to Jesus as "THE Jesus," or the unique Jesus/Savior. I have no problem with the use of the name "Jesus" in this type of context (see my original comment). The problem is that most people today do not use the word Jesus in this sense.

For example, if you asked a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist or some other non-Christian what "Christmas" is, they would most likely reply that it's the day Christians believe Jesus was born. They would not say that it's the day Jesus Christ was born, or the day the Savior of the World was born, or the day Our Lord was born. In other words, they would use the word "Jesus" to designate an historical figure who went by that name. When a Christian explains what "Christmas" is, he would use terms like "Christ," "Redeemer," "Lord," etc. These names designate a theological truth. When a non-Christian group is told that the Man from Galilee was Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, they are told something entirely different than if they were told that the Man from Galilee was Jesus of Nazareth. When a non-Christian group is told that the Man from Galilee was Jesus Christ, they are told an historical fact AND a theological truth. When they are told the Man was Jesus of Nazareth, they are merely given an historical fact. That is what I mean when I say the name "Jesus" misses a theological truth.

 

[Pentheus]

Okay Jerome, thanks for the further clarification. And I do see your point. However, I am inclined to think that, to most Christians, the terms "Jesus", "Jesus Christ", "Jesus the Christ", "Lord" and "Savior" are synonyms. All equally valid, all equally meaningful. While a non-Christian would also likely see these as synonyms- and dismiss them as being all equally unimportant and irrelevant. In short, I doubt that saying "Jesus Christ" rather than "Jesus" is going to greatly alter anyone's perception of the subject in question. Additionally, I think that the assertion that "Perhaps, some Christians are tacitly admitting that they never thought He was the Christ to begin with" was a bit over the top, and I cannot agree with that statement. Of course, all of this is merely my own personal viewpoint, and perhaps others will disagree with my views as well...

-Pentheus-

 

[Jerome]

My dear Pentheus,

Catholics have been trying for years to convince the Greek Orthodox just that with respect to the "filioque." The problem is that while some people may think two phrases are synonymous, to others they are not. Had I not met certain "Christians" who informed me that they would not couple the name Jesus with Lord because it implied the divinity of Christ, I would never have made the accusation.

 

[Philip]

Catholics have been trying for years to convince the Greek Orthodox just that with respect to the "filioque." The problem is that while some people may think two phrases are synonymous, to others they are not.

Um, not exactly.

 

[Jerome]

Um, not exactly.

Are you suggesting that the Greek churches view "qui a Patre procedit" as synonymous with "qui a Patre Filioque procedit?" (In which case, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople would be quite surprised.)

Or are you suggesting that the Greek churches take umbrage with the addition of the "filioque" because the Nicene Creed should not be changed? If the latter, then how do you get around the changes made at Constantinople?

The point I meant to make is that the addition of a few words to a word or phrase can make quite a bit of difference theologically. "Lord" and "Christ" when added to the name "Jesus" often mean something entirely different than a reference to "Jesus of Nazareth." Similarly, phrases like "filioque" or "theotokus" can add whole new layers of theological significance to a word or phrase that the word or phrase does not contain without those additives.

 

[Philip]

I am suggesting that the analogy between the filioque and the title "Christ" is flawed.

 

[Knight]

Funny, I saw a thread not too long ago with the opposite position. That people were not referring to Christ by the name Jesus enough. Pardon me if I find that amusing.

There are two schools of thought on this:

1) Using the name Jesus shows a familarity that signifies a personal relationship. Jesus desires all to have a personal, intimate relationship with Him.

2) Using Jesus' titles (ie: Christ, Lord, Savior, Lamb of God, Son of Man, Son of God, etc...) is a sign of respect. For example: you may be personal friends with the President of the Unites States but you're more likely to refer to him as "Mr. President" or "Sir" rather than George.

Personally, I think both these points have merit. I would not judge someone weak or strong in their faith based on how they refer to Christ Jesus.

 

[Jerome]

I am suggesting that the analogy between the filioque and the title "Christ" is flawed.

Do you have an argument or a reason as to why you think the analogy is flawed or is that just your opinion?

 

[Polycarp1]

There is an Old Testament name Yehoshua (usually Englished with a J, but remember that this transliterates a Y sound as in German Johann) which appears to have been the full form of Joshua's name. My Strong's shows it as being used in Numbers 13:16 and I Chronicles 7:27, with reference to him. It literally means "salvation of YHWH or "YHWH is salvation" -- a very apposite name for our Savior.

Later folks were named after Joshua or with the intent of the meaning of his name. Two are mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah: Jeshua the son of J(eh)ozadak, who was the High Priest at the return froim Exile, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel.

When the Scriptures were translated into Greek by the Seventy, the final -S was used to conform Jewish names to Greek naming and declension style. The first two major prophets were rendered Isaias and Jeremias, Zechariah became Zacharias, and so on. Judah the Patriarch and the tribe and kingdom named for him became Judas.

And Jehosuha > Jeshua became Jesus.

It was a relatively common name. The author of the book of wisdom in the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals) called Ecclesiasticus was Jesus son of Sirach. It's interesting and poignantly ironic to note that some manuscripts of Matthew 27:16-17 indicate that Barabbas's given name was Jesus -- which would make his name translate to "Jesus Son of the Father."

Christ, of course, translates Messiah, with the meaning "the Lord's Anointed" with the connotation of kingship. In addition to Jesus, the Bible records numerous others as being "the Lord's Anointed" -- without theological implications but as simple acknowledgement of their right to reign: Saul, the kings of the Davidic line, Zerubbabel, and Cyrus of Persia.