View Message

New Post
Search
Help

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

out of curiosity
by Tippins (blaaarg)
5/3/2008, 10:10 PM
in reply to a message by -=A=-
would you consider Joshua too "sacred" to use, in the same line of reasoning? It is def. too sacred for my use but I know lots of people forgive it because of popularity.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

- -=A=- (Avgvst)   +3
5/3/2008, 10:13 PM
Ironically no. It has been varied enough in my opinion away from the original.
vote up1
- Tippins (blaaarg)   +2
5/3/2008, 10:15 PM
Well, Joshua and Jesus are both variant transcriptions of Yeshua. Would you say Jesus has been varied enough from the original to be usable?
vote up1
- -=A=- (Avgvst)   +1
5/3/2008, 10:16 PM
No because it is the term I use to refer to the Christ where Joshua is not. They say Yeshua is the closest we can come to the original name, so that would also be too sacred for use.

This message was edited 5/3/2008, 10:20 PM

vote up1
- EgYpTiAn PrInCeSs
5/4/2008, 1:46 AM
I agree with you
vote up1