Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: unisoft!lins@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lindsay Gower) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Jesus who? Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 90 07:29:23 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 20 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu writes: >P.S. A slightly less irrelevant way would be Joshua Manson, a >contraction of His self naming as the Son of Man. Joshua Adams >would be even closer, and possibly relevant as it mentions His a His name would have been Joshua bar Joseph, since everyone "knew" his father was Joseph the Carpenter, of Nazareth. I think we often forget how the people in his day were looking on him; we are usually introduced to him as Jesus, Son of God (whether we believe that to be true or not). But at the time people knew him to be Mary and Joseph's boy (and everyone heard the whispers about his birthdate vs their wedding date). I do agree that the semantics over what to actually call him aren't relevant to His saving grace. Lindsay Gower UniSoft Corporation lins@unisoft.comm