Laurens
New Member
he_who_is_nobody said:I have to say that what you have presented appears like a very weak rebuttal to Jesus's title. I could buy that, but I was hoping there would be a better rebuttal for such an obvious problem from the mythosist's prospective. It also does not address why his name is Yeshua and not Emanuel. As I said, one would think if one were to create a Jewish messiah, than the name of the created messiah would be Emanuel. One would think if one was trying to hit as many prothetic nails on the head, getting the name of the messiah correct seems like a big one to hit.
I don't see an obvious problem with it, the fact that Matthew states "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled." in context of Jesus being a Nazarene. Even if we disregard the NZR exegesis, we are left with the question of why Matthew said this. Was he making up a prophecy to fix awkward facts after the matter? Maybe, but he equally could have been referencing an actual known prophecy.
The nativity may be an attempt at placing a known Nazarene in Bethlehem, but it could equally be an awkward attempt at fulfilling two contradictory prophecies. I would not consider myself a mythicist, I'm leaning on agnostic right now, but I would not say this is conclusive, and if it is the best argument for a historical Jesus, I think I will have to remain an agnostic on the matter.
Thus, linguistically, the name Yehoshua/Yeshua/Jesus conveys the idea that God (YHVH) delivers (his people).
source
In light of this it is difficult to argue that Jesus is not at very least an apt name for a saviour figure. Why not call him Emmanuel, I don't know. It could be because Jesus was a real person, but I wouldn't say that alone makes it more likely than not.