Updated date:

Has The Second Coming Of The Messiah Already Happened?


What's He Talking About

(I just want to say that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or trying to change anyone's belief, opinion or viewpoint. I'm not here to debate anyone. I'm only sharing my view of the subject. No harm meant. If you can't dig what I'm saying in this hub so be it, move on to hubs that you can dig. Now on to my topic)

I know some of you are probably saying "What the hell is this fool talking about!" "The second coming hasn't happened!"

I know, I know it sounds crazy because of what we've all been taught to believe....but it has happened. So bear with me and I'll explain.

Jesus is not Jesus' real name. It's the English transliteration of his name. So if Jesus isn't Jesus' real name what name was he called by when he was alive?

Jesus' Real Name?

Let's take a look at the derivation of the name Jesus.

(Jesus:c.1175 (O.E. simply used hælend "savior"), from Gk. Iesous, attempt to render Aramaic proper name Jeshua (Heb. Yeshua) "Jah is salvation," a common Jewish personal name, the later form of Heb. Yehoshua (see Joshua). As an oath, attested from late 14c. For Jesus H. Christ. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper)

So the name Jesus is derived from the name Yeshua or Joshua and means "Jah is salvation". And it's a "common Jewish personal name".


Let's look at the meaning of Joshua.

(Joshua: masc. proper name, biblical successor of Moses, from Heb. Yehoshua, lit. "the Lord is salvation." Joshua tree (1867) is perhaps so called because its shape compared to pictures ofJoshua brandishing a spear (Josh. viii.18). In the top 10 list of names for boys in the U.S. since1979.Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper )

Joshua is a translation of the Hebrew name, Yehoshua, meaning "Jah ( or Yah) is salvation" and that's why Jesus is called the "savior". Again we see the idea of salvation associated with Joshua's name as it is with Jesus' name because they're the same name in different languages. I think we all can agree on that.

Let's continue

In the Hebrew Bible, (the Christian Old Testament), Moses' right hand man is Yehoshua (in English, Joshua). In the 2nd century BC, in the Septuagint,( the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek), Yehoshua's name was transliterated as Iesous pronounced "ieesus" . This was the first time the name that would eventually become Jesus was known to history.

In the 4th century AD in the Latin Vulgate (the Bible in Latin this is the first Christian bible) , Iesous was translated as Iesus. In 1600 AD in the Kings James Bible, Iesus was translated into English,as the name we all know and love, Jesus. The l in lesus was changed to a J in English.

Very interesting don't you think?

So those who say that Jesus is the only name you can be "saved" by have a problem, because during his lifetime (if he ever lived). Jesus was probably called Yeshua or Yehoshua, in English it would be, Joshua, but definitely not Jesus. So how can you be saved by that name?

The Bible the early Christians used was the Septuagint (the old Testament in Greek). When they saw the name, Iesous, they knew it was referring to Moses' successor and right hand man, Yehoshua (Joshua). (The English name ,Jesus, didn't exist during that time). This was the first coming of the messiah.

When the New Testament was written ( it was written in Greek) and when the early Jewish Christians saw the name Iesous, they saw it as referring to the second coming of Yehoshua (Joshua) the messiah who led their ancestors out bondage in Egypt to the promised land of Canaan, who was Moses' right hand man, Joshua.

The First And Original Savior

Yahoshua (Joshua) was the first and original savior. So that makes the Jesus we all know and love the second coming of the savior (Yehoshua, lit. "the Lord is salvation" Dictionary.com.) If Yehoshua is salvation he's your savior as well wouldn't you say?

So the second coming has already happened but you probably didn't know that. If you're still waiting for Jesus to return that would be the third coming of the messiah. There have been many messiahs. All the kings of Israel were messiahs, meaning they were "anointed" or chosen by the God of Israel to be kings.

(Messiah: c.1300, Messias, from L.L. Messias, from Gk. Messias, from Aramaic meshiha and Heb. mashiah "anointed" (of the Lord), from mashah "anoint." This is the word rendered in Septuagint as Gk. Khristos (see Christ). In O.T. prophetic writing, it was used of an expected deliverer. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper)

Isaiah 45:1 backs up what I said about messiah or christ (khristo) meaning anointed and that there were other messiahs before Jesus was said to be the messiah.

"Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will lose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;" Isaiah 45:1. Amazing!

Do you really realize the meaning of what Isaiah said?

Isaiah says that that the Persian king, Cyrus the great, who freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity, was the "Lord's Messiah" (Christ) hundreds of years before Jesus was said to be born. Fascinating!

Now we know where the idea of Christ came from. And that there have been many Christs, Messiahs and Saviors who preceded Jesus.They're all interchangeable and are just different names for the same-thing, I'm just shedding a little light on how the idea of Jesus the Savior/Messiah.Christ came about,

Has Jesus Already Returned?

But just to make it more clear for those people who still believe that Jesus is yet to return. Read the following:

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death*, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matt 16:27-28

If there were some standing there, who would not taste death, until they see Jesus/the son of man returning in his kingdom. Doesn't that mean that Jesus returned while they were alive? Or don't you believe Jesus' statements are true?

Here another one:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Matt: 24:30-34

I think we can all agree that, that "generation" has passed. So I ask again, doesn't that mean that, Jesus has already returned during that generation? Or do you think that Jesus was mistaken?

See why I say the second coming has already happened? I thought you would!

I hope you found this intellectually and spiritually stimulating

If you enjoyed the hub vote it up, share with friends, family and on Facebook and other social media


Return of the Messiah

Caesar's Messiah!


Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on April 26, 2018:

Medicine Man, Allow me to present The Parable of the fig tree as i see it.

It is caused by Joshua's cursing the fig tree as he entered Jerusalem one morning and it was withered by that evening and his telling the girls as he carried his cross up the mountain to "weep for their children and children's children" and in the CE year 70 Jerusalem was destroyed. So, when a people called Jews took Israel's original homeland in 1948 the fig tree budded.

Now we have Isaiah 11:1-12 where a ROD from Jesse's stem and a BRANCH form his roots are announced to come. Joshua was the Rod from his stem because we supposedly know his genealogy per Matthew 1:1-17 but here in Isaiah we are told the ROOT will come just before Israel's homeland is reestablished which happened in 1948.

We also have Joshua's words on his way down from the mountain of transfiguration, Matthew 17:10-13, where he said Elijah shall come and restore all things. To restore all things Elijah would be required to reestablish the way of life that preceded the garden in Eden story therefore we must fit Elijah in someplace.

In Exodus 4:6-8 we are given Moses as a man of color, a white sign and another sign of color who must be believed. Furthermore we have 2 stones, the first Moses was told to smite and the other he was told to speak to but smote twice to get water for man and animals from both. Then in Daniel 2:45 we have a stone who falls on the last great civilization made up of the SEED OF MAN who are not integrating like clay and iron doesn't unite and, if we believe this are the last days, The United States of America fits that description just as the MANY WATERS "Mystery Babylon" sits on represents (Rev. 17:15).

Following that line of thought Joshua was the rock who brought the early sowing rains and Elijah will be the messiah to brings the latter harvest rains and destroy Judah of prophecy (Gen. 49:1 & 8-12 plus Micah 5:2) or the U.S.A. That would also mean the U.S.A. is the highest mountain (Isa, 2:2-4) where Zion is to be established for bringing world peace so the 10 virgins (Mat. 25:1-13) can practice living ecologically before they are shut up in Armageddon while the Battle Of That Great Day Of God Almighty is shedding the "Red Sea" of blood to end the world. Thus, Elijah will b e th eProphet like moses (Duet. 18:15-18).

There is some food for thought that might help you understand there are to be two Christs.

Rodric Anthony Johnson from Surprise, Arizona on May 06, 2014:

See, revelation fixes all these such arguments. I am so glad that I am LDS. Anyway, I saw this title and I almost used unbecoming language!

It was intellectually stimulating though I could not wait to get to the end so that I could comment. A prophet of God, Joseph Smith Jr. revealed that Jesus Christ actually uses the name, Jesus Christ. It is how He revealed Himself to Joseph Smith and many other people in these last days.

I think that you are correct about His name being Joshua, but we have been commanded to use Jesus Christ--at least LDS have been commanded in our scriptures that we mustn't pray in any other name in English than Jesus. In Xhosa we say Yesu Kristu, which is closer to Joshua I suppose, but in English... well, you know.

MereMortal on December 09, 2013:

Sounds like a mixed bag of irony and paradox. The same could be said about someone like you who read the bible and choose to see it just the way you like it or in your case how much you dislike it. How is that different from a believer who reads it and forms their own view on it?

Your quote on beliefs needing to be crucified and rising again in the truth is just a fine example of how you read the bible, weave your own conclusion and form your own 'facts'. You have just stitched together different parts of the bible together and in the process taken the verses out of context. "The truth will set you free" was used by Jesus to address believers. The full text is: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Notice the start of the sentence? So it seems to be again that you have selectively applied mental filters to the bible. Little wonder then that you are confused.

Your 'facts' are based on your notion of what the truth is, which you condescendingly imply others fail to to see. Your 'truth' is really relative truth: subjective and varies from person to person.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 21, 2013:


I agree about D. Williams comment!

I found that true believers, those who value their beliefs over facts, can read the same bible verse as I have and see only what they want to see.

So I don't "debate" them anymore. I use too.

Then I learned that what they call a "debate" is rejecting any facts, contradictions, or historical information etc, that impinges their firmly held beliefs.

No amount of reasoning, facts, biblical contradictions or historical information, will penetrate their minds.

Many of them have so much emotion invested in their beliefs they get down right hostile as if their very lives are at stake, if you question the bible or the existence of Jesus.

And in a sense their emotional lives and security are at stake.

but if they really want to be like Jesus

Their beliefs have to be crucified so they can rise again in the truth, and the truth will set them free.

So that's why I make it clear that I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs or convince anyone of anything. I'm just sharing my views for those who can find them useful.

belleart from Ireland on November 21, 2013:

I find this really interesting....you are obviously well versed (more so than me anyway :)) with the bible and what it actually says rather than what people 'think' it says. I loved D.Williams comment about 'three strikes and your out', humerous but with a touch of reality!

OpenMindedness on November 19, 2013:

My own research tells me Jesus is very real. Thank you for providing this forum of intellectual debate.

Peace be upon you brother.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 19, 2013:

If you were really interested in this research you would have done your own research

thanks for commenting

OpenMindedness on November 18, 2013:

You are missing the whole point of an intellectual debate my friend and I seem to have touched a raw sensitive nerve of yours.

That is a presumption because you (still) have not given me a research reference other than the good old Britannica and Hub Videos? Happy for you to provide me access to the research papers and publications you are drawing your insights from.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 18, 2013:

The researchers on those videos I respect. So there you go

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 18, 2013:


More presumptions!

I have read the bible cover to cover many times over the last 20-30 years or more and that’s how I saw some of the contradictions in it that I point out.

And then I looked to see if anyone else saw them too or was it just me

The first resource I used, and I was actually surprised to find further info in, during the late 1960’s, was the good ole encyclopedia Britannica, ( not google uh oh!)

one thing I was surprised to find was the odd fact that there aren’t any originals of the old testaments scriptures or of the New Testament scriptures, wouldn’t you think that documents considered so sacred, that the original documents would have been preserved?

So that’s one of the reasons I believe the research which you obviously haven’t read because it confirmed some of the contradictions I point out in the bible, have been seen by others hundreds or a thousand years before I was born. Even the early Gnostic Christians criticized what is now the orthodox view of Jesus and his life story.

That’s all the explanation I will give you.

And as I said, I’m not trying to convince you of anything or change what you believe, because I don’t care what you believe and don’t owe you any explanation.

If you don’t like what I have to share, don’t read my hubs or leave any comments. I’m perfectly fine with that.

I’m not trying to prove Jesus didn't exist I’m just exploring is there any real historical info about Jesus during the time he supposedly lived.

I’m just sharing what I find backed up by further research. So take it or leave it.

Do your own research, But I don’t think you will.

To get you started watch to the videos on this hub and see if you can argue with them

OpenMindedness on November 18, 2013:

Despite the rhetoric, I see that you have not answered my question or don't know the answer to it, and that is fine. The same applies if you replace Google with any research materials.

"What is the reasoning you apply to to BELIEVE what you find on anything you researched is true? How are you not a believer who is believing a lie?"

(I know the next sentence may be presumptuous because you have not told me what research papers you were referring to and I apologize in advance). Scriptures that formed the Bible predates the 'research papers' you have 'referenced' as far as radio carbon dating tells me, so I am not sure what you meant when you said the credibility of your historical research was based on age of the research material.

Our minds are what we fuel it with. Christians and non Christians alike are equally susceptible. Where then is the line between right and wrong? How do you account for morality? If you had one minute with a Jihadist, how will you convince him what he is doing is wrong?

My point is: If you just constantly research ways on debunking Christians and Christianity, that is just what your mind will be. I implore you to not just research why Jesus did not exist. Have an open mind and do some research too on why Jesus (in human form) existed. Rather than quote a sentence from the Bible, read the Bible in its totality.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 18, 2013:

Also to anyone who reads my hubs. I don't write to try to change anybody's belief or to get you to agree with me.

I'm just sharing what I know and if you don't find it of value or it really upsets you etc, etc, do yourself a favor and stop reading my hubs.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 18, 2013:


keeping with that tradition exercise your mental muscles on this https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Who-Is-Th...

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 18, 2013:

Yeah Eric

that what I do

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 18, 2013:


Your comment "BELIEVE what you find on Google is true" is nearsighted and presumtuous. The historical research I'm referring to predates the invention of google by hundreds of years.

If you availed yourself of some serious open-minded research on the history of bible, not the history in the bible, but when it was written, who wrote and why, then you may see something that you may not want to see but may be beneficial for you to see.

As I said some people want attack what I write because they don't know what I know or want to know what I know

And since you liked this hub so much here's link to another one to tickle your fancy https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Who-Is-Th...

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on November 17, 2013:

Sweetness. My momma told me that there would be days like this. Weasey you do honor to a gift of our intellect. I will always find you well worth the listen. This thing from openMindedness is cool. You brought that out. Good for you.

OpenMindedness on November 17, 2013:

I cannot prevent nor will I attempt to ridicule your selective denial of historical facts.

The Holocaust happened during your living memory. I was not born then, and it was taught to me from my history lessons and books (different medium as oppose to a church). That should not stop me nor my (and your) grandchildren, great-grand children from BELIEVING it did happen and should never be repeated. So question to you then is if Martin Luther King (recent history) or Nicolaus Copernicus (distant history) existed? By what reasoning do you apply and converge on to BELIEVE they existed but not Jesus?

You, me and everyone have the right to question anything or anyone's existence. That forms the core fabric of human civilization and advancement. Questioning someone else's believe and then (perhaps arrogantly) stating that it is a lie, seems a lot like a personal vendetta to me.

You are partially right my friend. Christians BELIEVE Jesus, as God in the form of man and not the name alone, is the way, truth and the life. Anyone can be named Jesus (as common in the Hispanic culture). Point I am trying to make is not the fact that his name is spelled or appears in a different form. It is his existence, which you cast doubts on without substantiating it on multiple occasions.

If by inferring that you know more than many people because you know the bible's history, that again goes back to my question- What is the reasoning you apply to to BELIEVE what you find on Google is true? How are you not a believer who is believing a lie?

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on November 15, 2013:

Thank for your comments OpenMindedness

I could say that I find your comments disturbing

But let me clear up what you "disturbingly" attribute to me

There is no comparison to The Iranians denying the holocaust because we know that happened within our living memory.

That's not the case with Jesus and other biblical characters that's why in all the churches you're taught to believe Jesus existed.

So it's valid to question the existence of Jesus and other biblical characters especially when you take in to account that his name really isn't Jesus but Yeshua which in english is Joshua.

So believers are believing a lie.

They say that Jesus is the only name you can be saved by but his name is not Jesus it's Joshua (Yeshua) and if he did exist he would not have been called Jesus in the language he spoke but Joshua and I don't think he would have referred to himself as Jesus either, wouldn't you agree?

Just do a little historical research on Jesus and you'll see what I mean

Many of those who believe in the bible don't know the real history of the bible, who wrote, when it was wriiten, what language it was written in, what was the first christian bible etc but want argue or critque someone who knows what they don't know

OpenMindedness on November 14, 2013:

Just from a neutral point of view, it would appear that the author enjoys critiquing ideas of others but do not take too well to a critique of his own ideas. He references various historic characters, and never questions their existence, but in the same breath doubts the existence of Jesus and the Apostles. This seems to draw parallel with the Iranians denying the Holocaust ever existed. That I find disturbing.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 05, 2013:

Eric you're all out in left field

I don't hate Christian believers. I critique what they believe

but I don't hate them. You have it all backwards. It's my "love fest of the truth".

I wonder what it is in your mind that causes you to mis-perceive me the way you consistently do other than the fact that you don't know me?

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 04, 2013:

vveasy I was talking about your love fest of hate. Hatred of Christian believers. The suggestion on Gay is meant for you in etymology.

I told you I love your hubs. I think you provide a great platform. Kind of like the lions den for Daniel.

Peace be with you my antagonist brother. But everybody knows : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUfS8LyeUyM

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 04, 2013:

Yeah Eric you sound like a real lover alright. You're being arrogant and presumptuous. Insinuating that people you don't even know are gay because they don't buy your party line. You're a marvelous human being yourself thanks for being such a good example

and if you don't like what you read on my hubs please stop following them

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 04, 2013:

You two are marvelous wonderful human beings. I get so much love out you that I just have to smile.

This hub has a funny name for it is really about the use of the terms that Christians use to identify with their Lord. But when I was done forcing vveasey to speak on that subject and not just Christian bash, you who two just went ahead and did it anyway. What a love fest.

Good for you two. It is great to see two people in love with an idea. It binds you and that is good. Perhaps more gay than I am comfortable with but hey I voted for prop 8 and think you have good rights and love your lifestyle. Just the love you share for each other and a common hate is good for you. I respect that and wish you two happiness.

When you are ready give me a line and I will help you to love others as you love yourselves and each other.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 04, 2013:

as they do me

d.william from Somewhere in the south on August 04, 2013:

The most scary part of all the brainwashing of children is that they in turn will brainwash their own and continue the madness to yet another generation.

Thanks for the link to the site. Excellent site. And i loved the video titled: "Respect my Religion". I will be adding that one to my hubs for those who insist on calling me vile names and threatening my life.. because they see me as a threat to their own personal misguided beliefs.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 04, 2013:

Yep we're on the same page

but "evidence" in the new testament suggests that the so-called apostles were not eyewitnesses if they ever lived. For instance:

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed" Luke 1-4

Does this sound like an eyewitness to you? The writer says he's basing his account on what was passed down to him by those who were "eyewitnesses"

But wait...there's more! It appears the disciples were illiterate:

“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men”, Acts 4:13

Peter and John are two the leading so-called disciples.

but they were unlearned and ignorant men. Meaning they couldn’t read or write as most of the populace couldn’t during those times. But there is a gospel supposedly written by John who was couldn’t read or write. But diehard believers won’t have a problem with that, because if it’s in the Bible it has to be true, even if doesn’t make sense.

Also here's a site by an alternative researcher of Bible history you may find interesting http://www.truthbeknown.com/horus.html

d.william from Somewhere in the south on August 04, 2013:

I don't know why H.P. shows some pages as no longer available, but i am happy you found it anyway. I am posting my reply to your comments on that hub here as well, to be part of your hub for others to read.

Especially those with their childhood indoctrinations so deeply imbedded into their subconsciousness that they are blinded with fear of the possibility that they were falsely taught. A realization, that should they accept it, would shatter the entire foundation of their worldly existence.

''vveasey: I am happy you found this page.

For some reason HP blocks certain hubs from being accessed? I am not suggesting they ''censure'' controversial subjects, per se, but it sure seems that way at times.

Anyway - i understand what you are saying and you certainly are correct that there is no proof of JC actually existing other than what is recorded by those who purportedly knew him.

But, this can also be said of many other historical figures.

So, we must ''assume'' that there was an actual person whose existence influenced the start of a new calendar (ac/bc).

What we cannot, or should not, be assuming is that those historical writings are to be believed verbatim.

The major difference between the Jesus stories, and Santa, the Easter Bunny and other fairytale characters is that those others were associated with positive thoughts. Where JC was associated with violence, hatred, intolerance, persecution, judgmental need, and rewards/punishments only attainable after death.

Somehow the threats of eternal punishment brainwashed into the minds of children from the time of their births, has had a greater impact on our collective societal belief systems than the more pleasant and benevolent fairytale characters.''

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 03, 2013:


thanks for your comments

It's a lot of double talk indeed! As you saw from back and forth with

Ericdierker .

If Jesus ever lived and there is no historical evidence that he did. He probably would have been nothing like his closed minded followers believe him to be. And most certainly not some supernatural being.

I clicked the link you posted but there was no article there

d.william from Somewhere in the south on August 03, 2013:

Interesting article. As i read the first sentence...:

(I know some of you are probably saying "What the hell is this fool talking about!") .... i sort of laughed as i expected something other than what you delivered.

The only comments i have is that it doesn't matter whether the next coming will be the second or third. What matters is the saying: "Three strikes and you're out".

If the messiah (son of God) could not fix the mess this world is in, in his first two attempts, there is little likeliho0d he will be able to fix it in the next attempt (s).

So, this leads to the conclusion that these messiahs were not much of a "savior" after all.

It saddens me to see all this talk, and double talk, about fairytale stories of the past, that have no empirical proof, or ever will, that any of it is factual.

It distracts from the enjoyment of living in the present, and causes extreme social unrest at the very least.

If you want to have a more realistic view of the life of Jesus read my hub: https://dwilliam.hubpages.com/hub/Who-was-Jesus-A-... It either sheds some light on the enigma of Jesus, or pisses people off. Either way, it is worth the read.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 02, 2013:

No you didn't answer the question or present any historical information to back your claims about the new testament being written in some language other than Greek.

But that's ok because as you've said on previous hub comments. You're more in love with love than truth or facts

thanks for commenting. I don't think there is anything else for us to discuss.

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 02, 2013:

Because I live in Spring Valley CA and teach and preach in a fully Vietnamese church and grew up with more Spanglish, Navajo, Hopi and burgeoning Ebonics than English yet I grew up in the United States. Yes I spent serious time in England and New England where their language is different. Here three miles from the border you had better speak some Mexican which is not Portuguese and is not Spanish and is border town frontiera not Central Mexican. And as I am only one quarter of a Vietnamese/American household you better understand some Viet. And not Northern Hanoi Viet either.

These scholars speak of great Greek texts and authors. That is so far from Jesus and His merry band of Jewish outcasts it is not even funny.

Does that help clarify? Again thank you I learn.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 02, 2013:

I appreciate the sentiment, but you still continue to ridicule scholars and those who are more expert than you, who posit historical info that goes against your beliefs and assertions, that what they say is not accurate, but don't show the historical info that backs your claims especially that the new testament was written in some other language, why is that?

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 02, 2013:

Again this is fallacious. Let me ask a simple question. When did (according to your scholars) Jewish heritage people go back to speaking Hebrew. Last I went to a temple or watched CNN about Israeli's they were not speaking Greek.

You are speaking of then current scholars. Probably even some Pharisees adopted Greek. Educated folk not like today with modern mandatory education. About the maximum of 10% of the population. Probably Paul spoke Greek and Probably he would use it to address Ephesians. But not Jews. Jews were a conquered and rebellious people during this time. But Paul is our only New Testament scholar and formally a rich guy while Saul. Maybe Luke the physician, but that is a stretch because he would have gotten his info from laymen who undoubtedly spoke Hebrew.

vveasey I want to thank you for a great hub and a lot of good info. As we have discussed we both love the origins and anthropological basis for current translation. Though we are somewhat arguing I hope we are being Socratic and not antagonistic.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 02, 2013:

"Koine, the fairly uniform Hellenistic Greek spoken and written from the 4th century bc until the time of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (mid-6th century ad) in Greece, Macedonia, and the parts of Africa and the Middle East that had come under the influence or control of Greeks or of Hellenized rulers. Based chiefly on the Attic dialect, the Koine had superseded the other ancient Greek dialects by the 2nd century ad. Koine is the language of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), of the New Testament, and of the writings of the historian Polybius and the philosopher Epictetus. It forms the basis of Modern Greek. See also Greek languages.

(Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/321153/K...

If you don't accept this then you just don't want to accept it.

Show your source for your claim that the new testament was written in some other language

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 02, 2013:

The links you provide do not reflect what you say they do. One asks us to visit a cooking site?

The statements above are not accurate. Commerce and trade is funny when speaking of how Jesus spoke in the temples or on the mounts or seashores. Jesus and the Apostles did not speak to Senators or Governors they spoke to common folk.

None of what you site above are written by authoritative Biblical Scholars.

Your right though if you read this dribble and consumed it like mother's milk I can see why you wrote your position.

In case you had not noticed Jesus Christ the Son of God the Lord of Lords and His apostles and Paul were not scholars, men of trade or commerce or Roman politicians or plebes. The above commentary is sad at best.

(note again, I do not refer to faith, belief or religion just linguistics in keeping with your hub parameter. I appreciate you deflected to these authors so that I can personally attack their lunacy and not you)

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 02, 2013:

Oh...ok...that explains it. You have a degree in philosophy. That why you think your smarter than me and others. Then you should know that this is not a philosophical treaties or presentation. It a hub that imparts information.

Your comments reminds me of those you left on a question I posted, on which you accused me of making comments to get more readers and to make money but you had to admit you were wrong about those assertions after I point out how you were “right” for the wrong reasons. Remember that one? I think you're doing something with this hub.

You say “And you claim the new testament was written in one language which has no basis in fact.”

Don't argue with me argue with these people

"The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD".

(Bible FAQ http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/11/)

"Greek was the language of Alexander's empire and so the language of the East under the Romans. It was the common language of the New Testament writers. An early translation of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, makes Greek important for Old Testament text criticism."

(Bible Dictionary Languages of the Bible http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/language/languages.ht...

"It is vital to understand that the New Testament was written in Koiné Greek, which was the common spoken and written language for hundreds of years in Palestine and the Roman Empire before the days of Jesus and His apostles. Greek was the universal language of commerce and trade. This is the language that Jesus, the apostles

and early New Testament Church used. Some erroneously teach that the New Testament was originally written in the Hebrew language and was later translated into Greek. Because they have not studied the history of Palestine, they fail to realize that Hebrew had ceased to be spoken by the Jews many centuries before the New Testament era."


Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 01, 2013:

Well your treatment of translation of Lord is minimal. That quarter paragraph on Khristos. Is hardly noteworthy. And a leap. So Jesus was his name. At the time they actually used "of" to denote family and location of heritage. Jesus of Nazareth. You do not address that. You also do not address the concept of Jesus Christ, Son of God our Lord and Savior. And you claim the new testament was written in one language which has no basis in fact. Paul did not speak Greek in his messages though he must have infused his Aramaic/Hebrew with much learned from Romans, Ephesians etc. etc.

Until much into the 16th century people did not speak with one word meanings. In fact newer languages still around mostly speak in multiple word conjunctions. Vietnamese and French are stellar examples.

I would not publish this response as it kind of makes you the elephant.

And notice I have not said one word on faith, religion or spirituality, this is all in the realm of linguistic Philosophy and I must admit my degree in that is heavily, Bowsma, Wittgenstein and Descarte. So maybe a little different than you more traditional sophistry as we focus on context. And all things are Cogito Ergo Nihl.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 01, 2013:

As I said this had nothing to do with keywords except in your mind.

It seems when something I write doesn't comport with your beliefs you make light of it or you don't understand it or both.

You made a few unfounded accusations now do some explaining

how do I "determine the value of the concept of second coming by focusing on really one word"?

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 01, 2013:

I suppose not but really you treat it just the same. You take one word and dissect a whole content rich work by many authors. Bots just take a few words and determine the value of what is put forth. Sure looks and smells the same.

You are determining the value of the content of the concept of second coming by focusing on really one word. And really there are three taken in context together and you take them out of context and reach a value determination.

Tell me why that is not like keyword search engine optimization again.

You just take words and compute them without the meaning in which they are used.

Did you have any references from this century.

And like I said before your reference of the word "Christ" needs elaboration. You conclude without a well stated theory.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 01, 2013:

This has nothing to do with keywords

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 01, 2013:

I can see that for you that is very true. I like a poet here called epigramman. He is very good with words but if that is all you take away you miss so much fun and love and humor and a sense of deep understanding. But hey we write here were Keywords and SEO is king/messiah/lord so it is just the mechanics and not the deeper richer meaning.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on August 01, 2013:

Thanks Eric

Christ is from Messiah which means anointed. All of the kings and I believe the High priests were Christs. But Christ is an English word. The original word is Messiah. Read the hub again I tackled the "big elephant" in the room.

You say this is an interesting hub on words the same is true of the Bible. It's an interesting Book on words.

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on August 01, 2013:

A very interesting hub on the words. It is a linguistically interesting bit of work. Kind of left the big elephant sitting in the corner of the room not doing the same for "Christ". But I suppose that is for a follow-up hub.

I think there are a lot of believers that do not really focus a particular name. But if one group changed the name I imagine we could have crusades over it.

I would also like to know if the first deliverer of people brought to Canaan was referred to as the origin of the word "Lord". Could be as it somewhat translates to king.

Thanks for a great lesson in etymology.

Related Articles