I’m not at all impressed with this–sounds like justification for passing judgment against another culture. So we, who use English, get to name our sons after the Lord, but those who use other languages who don’t have this distinction don’t, without being disrespectful?
I can verify that what he posted is correct. :tiphat:
No problem…I remember being fascinated in high school Spanish with the Spanish forms of common Biblical names. Santiago for the English “James” puzzled me till I figured out it was from Saint Jacob (James). Call me a language geek.It is. I was hit by a staggering blast of stupidity. I caught the mistake and deleted the post, but clearly not in time.
Who names their kid Joshua thinking that this meant they were naming their son after the Lord? My whole point is that from an English-language perspective the names are different and refer to different Biblical figures, and so we can name children “Joshua” without giving them the same name as our Lord.
Joshua=Yeshua=Iesous=Jesus
From what I’ve just read on the internet I guess that at least some Spanish Bibles use Jesus for both names, even though this other name, Josue, also exists in the culture. Clearly there is not an exact parallel to English usage. I still maintain that it is a beautiful thing that we English-speakers are able to keep the name of Jesus holy in this particular way, while there is of course nothing wrong with the Latin American custom either.
My Spanish is rusty, but I did find numerous Spanish and Portuguese people on Google named Josue. So, it does appear to be a name that gets used for Joshua by Spanish speakers.
I think, though, that if Spanish or Portuguese parents want to name their son using a Spanish form of what English speakers write as “Joshua”, they will use “Josue”, not “Jesus”.
Did everyone in this thread miss the post above? ^
) and I honestly can’t remember ever hearing anyone say “Jesus” by itself. Not me, not my friends, not my family…literally nobody says that. That’s basically something only Anglos do. I’m pretty pocho (Europeanized), and I would still never even think of using it like we do in English in Spanish. It wouldn’t make sense, precisely because we do have this distinction between the personal name Jesus and the Lord and Savior Christ whose name is Jesus. Anglos don’t have it, fine, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with what Hispanic people do, or that they aren’t keeping the name “sacred” or any other nonsense. Name-worship is a heresy, and since it is after all a proper name in the first place, there is no problem here.It’s true that people most often say: Our Lord Jesus (Nuestro Senor Jesuscristo), Jesuscristo, - but they do say Jesus. My mother’s cousin’s name is Jesus and it is to honor Jesus and to make the faith present in every day life. It is also to shamelessly announce to the world without fear that you are christian. Perhaps, there was an era that it was courageous to carry that name. I wouldn’t be surprise. It’s bold.Did everyone in this thread miss the post above? ^
Because this is really how it is. I grew up speaking Spanish (same as everyone else in California
The poor monk was not even aware of the turmoil his little book ensued and died not knowing if he had been ex-communicated. You see, that goes to show you that we need the Church to guide us. We humans tend to have a great imagination.Jesus is simply a translation of Joshua. In lots of cases it is pronounced Haysu!
I’m not sure you understand what I mean. Of course people are named Jesus (I grew up with plenty), but it is exceedingly rare to find Hispanic people praying to “Jesus” rather than “Jesucristo” the way that Anglos would pray to “Jesus”. Off the top of my head, the only prayer I can think of that uses “Jesus” and not the titular form is probably the Ave Maria, and even there it is used with reference as a personal name (y bendito es el fruto de tu vientre, Jesús), not in direct address in the way that Anglos use “Jesus” in prayer. As the poster I was quoting says, it is exceedingly rare to find a Hispanic person using “Jesus” alone to refer to Jesus Christ.
Of course it isn’t. My point is that we don’t treat the name itself as though it is reserved only for Christ just because that was His earthly given name. It was also a given name of people before His incarnation and after His death and resurrection, down to the modern day. There is nothing wrong with this.
.??? That was my point!
Excellent point. Perhaps we should consider that it is us Anglos who are being irreverent by not calling Christ by his title and instead being all chummy with “Jesus.”
