₦airaland Forum

IMAliyu:
I think you may be conflating having a philosophy and belief structure with a religion.
A religion is a belief structure, but a belief structure is not a religion.
So, 'New atheism' seems to have a belief structure and a philosophy attached to it, but I wouldn't call it a religion.
And not unless we are stretching the definition of words. Atheism still just means a lack of belief in any deity(s).

That point I was trying to get at sir is that the word religion is more complex than what it is normally distilled into. The problem stems from the fact that when the word "religion" got it's modern connotations in the English language ,it was already heavily influenced by the Christain/western worldview and failed to encapsulate many other worldviews. Today trying to get an all encapsulating definition for the word is alot complex when you have to consider the spectrum of worldviews involved, from theistic religions to nontheistics religions(there are and have been actually a couple of nontheistics religions, both historically and in modern times).

I think you may be conflating having a philosophy and belief structure with a religion.

A philosophy can also be a religion sir. Confucianism is fundamentally a philosophy but it is also considered a religion.

Atheism still just means a lack of belief in any deity(s)

Yes,that is true sir in its most basic form and I also do agree that merely having a belief structure doesn't automatically make something into a religion. But when this beliefs make adherents exhibit behaviours that can be mapped unto behaviours associated with what would be considered a religion (when taking holistically), at that point you have the making of something new.
Take an extreme example, when Antony Flew(one of the most prominent atheist at the time) left atheism and became a deist, the new Atheist movement went bezerk and Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins went as far as accusing him of “tergiversation (a fancy word for apostasy)". This is a behaviour that can be mapped unto what you expect from other established religions.
I know this is an extreme example but if you take a step back and begin to observe the behaviours of many adherents of the new Atheist movement you begin to see a pattern of behaviour that you expect to see in adherents of other established religions (when taking the word religion holistically). That's why I said previously the answer is both a yes and a no answer.

Finally sir, I try to be as intentional as I can with my language. I do not mean to say everyone who identifies as an atheist necessarily exhibits these behaviours and as human beings are complex ,not everyone also neatly maps unto either side of the spectrum.

tintingz:
Hinduism and Buddhism believe in supernaturals and gods(awaken Buddhists, folk deities).
I still maintain that, a religion is composed of what I listed.

It is well sir, let's leave it at that then.

JMAN05:
I will comment when it has to do with grammar as regards John 3:5. I think, there is no more reason to speak on that. There is no grammatical reason to input "the" before "spirit". It's all about doctrine. I won't make much issue about that cos that often happens in translations. What I won't agree is that Greek grammar supports it. It doesn't.

However, as to why "water" there refers to water baptism, I will prefer a private discussion. Without such, I assure you that there won't be an end to the tunnel. If you want to discuss that, let's make it private.

It is well sir.. let's drop it at that.
Enjoy your weekend.

tintingz:
So it's only on Judeo-christian those listed exist? When infact it exist in over thousands Religions out there? Name any religion.

Sir,You need to read more on other religions outside of the major ones. There have been many religions that do not include many of what you wrote, for example there are nontheistics schools within Hinduism or Buddhism( as this religions in their pure form do not require a belief in God or gods ). Cārvāka is an ancient belief system founded purely on materialism principles. You can look up many other religions past and present that do not fit the bill of what you posted.

The fact that you even believe a religion needs saints to be one reflects your Judeo-Christian worldview. Like I said earlier, what constitutes a religion is more complex than a listing of things on a checklist.

Lol, you really quoted out the bolded, like what's the connection

I'm guessing you didn't read up on it ,but that's fine sir. The summary is that Kaufman won the case ,so atheist organisations for the purpose of the law are considered religious organisations and are conferred with the same protections. This was a watershed moment as it paved the way for other rulings which places atheism as a protected belief system at the same level as any religion. (see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby as a subsequent and more concise example)
The main reason why I pointed you to it is so you can follow the proceedings and see how the judges and experts had to grapple with what is and is not a religion or belief system. It's definitely not a simple checklist

Any ideology can be Religion as long as it follows the listed. Atheism is lack in belief in gods that's all. Like Lordreed said can you call an off TV a cable channel?

@the bolded is obviously wrong. It's too simplistic a worldview.
Ah, the good'ol if atheism is a religion or belief system then ....(off is a TV station,bald hair is a hair colour and so on). The problem with these statements is that they are false equivalences. Those things usually listed are not ideologies or concepts. No one says anything can become a religion, what is said is any ideology (ideas, concepts) can become a religion. For example there's a cult of Elvis today and you will be surprised by how many people are part of the religion. They replaced the real Elvis with an idea of him and center their beliefs around this idea. I know it's easy to dismiss them as silly but its an extreme example of how powerful an idea/concept can be.

So back to the question, is atheism a religion? Short answer: Yes and No.
No in its historical sense and at its most basic form.

Yes in the modern sense in that many of its adherents have a core set of beliefs and positive claims. It's also possible to map many of their behaviours onto the behaviours of adherents of other established religions and belief systems. Problem is some do not realise this and some choose to deny it.

PS: I used the word many here intentionally because I do not mean all atheist.

tintingz:
There are things that make up a religion.


1. Designated behaviors and practices
2. Morals
3. Worldviews
4. Texts
5. Sanctified places, temples
6. Prophecies
7. Ethics
8. Organizations
9. Supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
10. Faith, beliefs
11. Rituals
12. Festive
13. Saints
14. Prayer, meditation

Actually that's not true. Numbers 4-14(including number 2) are not necessary for something to be recognised as a religion. You are basing your concepts of a religion on the Judeo-Christian worldview and western bias but in reality what constitutes a religion is really more complex.

As kobojunkie pointed out, any ideology can become a religion. Atheism isn't meant to be a religion but over the years has morphed into becoming one for alot of its adherents even without them recognising.

In many western countries, even at the judicial level there's been this constant shift on how to recognize and in giving their organisations the same rights as any other mainstream religious organisation. See the Kaufman v. McCaughtry (2005), Seventh circuit court of appeal ruling for an example.

JMAN05:
No. I have been here for long. I ve observed that people are readily open to change when they think no one is seeing the conversation. Unlike when it is open, they are ready to argue to death even when the evidence is obvious. Why? Perhaps, they want to save face. They feel they ll loose if they accept in public. You will likely observe this later.

Secondly, there are chances of derailing the thread in a public discussion.

Pm works best. Trust me.

I've been here off and on for a while so I understand what you are talking about. Despite that, there are things that can be discussed here.
This is more of a conversation that centers around how we parse certain texts and not necessarily a conversion conversation, so it's okay be discussed in the open. You have offered to show how you arrived at your interpretation and I'll very much like to read it. I'll in turn will probably give you reasons why I agree with some parts and disagree with others and some else can probably chip in from a different angle.
There's too much misinformation on the internet and the more respectful conversations that are public, the better.

Either way sir, I'll understand if you are not inclined to do so. It's perfectly okay

JMAN05:
I see that place as referring to water baptism. Do you wish we discuss it? I will prefer a mail from you. Not public forum.

I personally think an open forum is fine for a topic like this. It gives opportunity for others to chip in with other view points. I think as long as we all handle the conversation with grace, it should be fine.

.

hoopernikao:
Good one.
No different stand then.
Explanation well done in context and bible theology.

Well done Sir.

I'm glad we landed on the same page sir.
But I'll like to offer one last comment: Using the end to justify the means is a slippery slope, especially when it comes to exegesis. Something we all(myself included) have to be mindful of.

Have a good one sir and enjoy your weekend.

hoopernikao:
@jamesid29

On your second point.

I would fully subscribe to the OP interpretation of John 3:5 that the usage of water will refer to the spirit birth only. The context, content, explanation and bible corroboration of support this.

You can present your view on this using text of the scriptures to support your stand.

Ok so, firstly I was just chipping in to clarify that OP's use of the Granville Sharp's rule didn't apply in his scenario as he would be altering the text and it's grammar.

As for interpreting what Jesus meant with "born of water and Spirit". I do agree with the position that Jesus was reefing of OT motifs where water and spirit/wind are used symbolically to speak of the new creation/new kingdom ( Isaiah 44:3-5 , Ezekiel 36:25-27, 37:9-10). It fits with John's theology and Jesus's initial statement in verse 3 of the need to be born "from above"(Ánōthen: rendered as born "again" as that's how Nicodemus initially understood it).

Although the traditional view of "the water" symbolising baptism does hold some merit ,especially if you look at it from a cultural standpoint, I'm not really leaning towards it.

[quote author=hoopernikao post=91047817]Note firstly, that what is being address is not about not seeing Jesus in study or God speaking through his word. That is a given when you feed on scripture.

I know sir... Like I tried to clarify at the end of my write-up, I was pretty sure you already knew most of what I was saying but I just wanted to state somethings explicitly for others who might misinterpret one or two things. I personally believe people need to be able to trust their Bible.

[quote]But this is not a leeway to ignore the text meaning or interpretation. When a text is given a different meaning from its original intent, it naturally looses its inspiration

I personally would not agree with this. Most translations try to stick to the intent hence why I kept using the word major translation as opposed to translation done by specific groups with agendas outside of the core tenets of the faith.

Secondly, Every form of translations are interpretation in themselves. If you ask a translator in any field, you will be told.

Now to the bible, only few translations adhere strictly to almost word for word translation. Mostly are adjusted due to language barrier. Hence you cannot absolve any translation of interpretation.

I think the major bone of contention is the usage of the word intepret. I believe you are using the word to mean "finding the best word that carries the right intent of the text as opposed to a one size fits all". I believe that might be a bit misleading in alot of cases because the popular understanding of the phrase "interpretation of scriptures" means to "breakdown the text and explain it". That's more in the region of commentaries,study notes, lecture series etc.
One of the reasons(out of many) biblical translation is very hard is because there are places where there is no suitable English word that carry the same intent. Other times it might be there are words that nobody is sure what they mean or what they meant in the first century. In some of these cases, because translators have a very limited leeway in expatiating on the text, they just have to find a word or phrase that captures it to the best of their ability.

This is where commentaries and so on come in to give a more holistic picture, since they can write pages upon pages on just one word or phrase.

I could have used BY in both texts or use IN in both or use WITH in both and they will all still make sense in English. But mostly likely different meaning to the reader.

Like I pointed out in my previous post, mistakes do happen because we are talking about a 2000yr old language. Also like I pointed out above, there are words that can be ambiguous or words that are still under debate or phrases noone is sure what it actually meant in 1ad. Couple that with multiple mss variant, for sure translators would have to make choices. I speak another heavily inflected language similar to greek grammar in terms of structure and I know how hard it is to translate from it to English, especially when the word has multiple meanings in English or worse there's no English word that would capture it accurately. If that is happening in a Lang that is still extant, the complexity is lot greater for a Lang spoken thousands of yrs back. To add to the difficulty, when translating from one language to another language, you're not just translating words but also translating cultures so even word for word translations have to make choices.
I'm not saying translator don't have to make choices, what I'm saying is interpretation of scripture carries a specific meaning in our everyday lives so we have to be careful or be explicit on how we use it so as not to confuse or give the wrong meaning to someone else.

Note also, that by the virtue of presenting bible in chapters and verses alone is interpretive in nature. The original weren't. This is one of the root of many wrong revelation and teaching today. It gives room to lifting scriptures out of its context and use.

I also would not personally agree with this. I get what you are saying but People have been misusing and lifting Scripture out of context long before the there was verse and chapter numbering(right from the days of the early church).

So, even though the translator will put all best to get as near as possible to the original language. It's word will still be at best a form of interpretation. This doesn't make their work feeble but only inform the reader to be cautious

Translation would be a better fit at the bolded. Like I mentioned in my previous post, there is no perfect translation and I really do understand your point on how a certain translation might go about affecting how one interprets the scriptures but the main point I'll like to make is, regardless of word choices ,no major translation distorts any of the core tenets of the faith. People should have like two or three Bible translations handy to get a more holistic picture ,especially for hard passages but other than that most people would do just fine with whichever translation they stick.
I think we should be more concerned about outside misinformation especially in this social media age and this new age thinking that one can read the Bible in isolation without the learning from others and form a theology around personal understanding. Also more church leaders should start prioritising having a deeper understanding of the language and culture of the Bible ,so they can help their members interpret the scriptures better.
Just my own opinion though

PS: I understand one or two languages well enough but greek is not one of them as I don't have any formal training in it. Everything I know is things I've picked up here and there. Just wanted to make that clear so I don't pass across the wrong impression

Modified

hoopernikao:
Read my post again. I didn't address the rule. I addressed the word usage and meaning it carried.

I'm not really sure what to do with this sir because I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with the OP's usage or not.

Secondly, as I stated earlier, the usage of the article in Greek are premised on word construction and it's word type. Sharp rule gave cases for the base words not the inflexions. Hence inflexion are translated to base case to apply sharp rule.

Have you checked all text the word was used. That will be key to get what am saying.

That's not quite correct sir. Dan Wallace has a pretty good and well detailed article on the subject matter
https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule

The sharp rule has a very specific use case so it has a couple of limitations, one of which requires the article to be present in front the first noun regardless of what case it is in.
"When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle".

The article must be the original text in any of its cases, if not the rule breaks down. I did check places where we are sure the rule applies to confirm.

You can read through the article I posted, it's one of the most detailed take on the subject.
In either case sir, i'm guessing you know the rule won't still apply in the OP's case even if their was an article present.

hoopernikao:
The word used there is pneumatos, it is an inflexion of pnuema. When pneumatos is used it is always expressed with the article "the" in landing language whether present or absent in the transiting language.

It must always be used in a definite term.
Hence when you see the word spirit pnuematos it usually translated as "of the spirit" or just "the spirit" when the article is absent.

Hence when the article is absent it will still be added in the landing language due to the grammatical functions of the word.

You can check other places it is used in the bible.

Just to chip in a bit, I believe JMAN05 is correct here sir.
One of the limitations of the rule is that the article has to precede the first noun in the actual greek text and not just the translation.

madegreatbygrace:
[[]quote author=hoopernikao post=91030429]

Lol.

You will need to read again and again what you wrote, then hopefully someday you can correct it.

The bible in your hand that you read is translated and interpreted by scholars. You said you dont seek the opinion of scholars when you read the bible. Truly, you cant and dont need to, because their opinion is already fused in what you are reading, their opinion is what is in your hands as English Bible.

Can you see where you are wrong? The bible you read is an opinion of a translator who is a bible scholar who helped you bring the original language to your language premise.
Your comprehension skill is already bounded by what the same scholar you dont seek his opinion wrote for you in English. So, you dont need to seek scholarly opinion, it is already in your hand.

Sadly, when such scholar presents a wrong meaning of words and you read it, you may likely embrace it and say that is what God ministers to you. . The earlier you get this the better Bro. This is not about forcing you or telling you wrong or right.

And on the bold above in your post above, i hope when you read the bible, its like Shakespeare abi? not that you are studying it as the word of God, because if you do the later, then that is called bible study and that makes you a bible students (you study the bible). The earlier we stop creating contradiction in the face of trying to be different the better.[/b]




To make it worse, scholars don't just translate the Bible, they also interpret.

This is not really true sir or atleast is an oversimplification of the facts.
To be fair there are Bible translations that are purely interpretative in nature like Message translation (Free translation), but the vast majority of translations fall into the dynamic equivalent or literal translation segment ,which try to translate the biblical text as close to the original as possible (albeit to various degree of accuracy).
The goal of translators is to translate(not interpret) the text most especially important with the literal versions like ESV NASB etc. it's true dynamic equivalent might try to give more clarity by using more of a thought-for-thought approach, but we won't call that interpretation in the way most people understand the word interpretation. For instance,where the text literally says "man" but in context was referring to humans in general, a dynamic equivalent translation might use the word "humanity" to remove ambiguity.

Also to remove translator bias(personal opinions) as much as possible most major translations are done by a team of translators from various backgrounds and denominations. They also have editors that check the work of the translation team, a committee to oversee the entire process and several other checks and balances. Truth is the Bible is very important to alot of people and the people who work on translations recognise these as they are Christains themselves, so they do their best present the text as close to the original as possible within the rationale of their translation. You can easily look up the translation team, editors, committee,philosophy, translation process, years it took and so on of most major Bible translations on the publishers website or on the first few pages of the hard cover.
At the end of the day, there are only a handful of major modern translations that are done by one person. I can only think of two the living Bible and the message translation. It's hard to really call them translations though because they are more a deeply paraphrased(more like reading a lecturer's notes than the actual textbook). Doesn't mean they are not good just that the rationale behind the translation in such a way that 21st century readers can connect to biblical story in a more contemporary way. Even at that, the message Bible still has alot of OT an NT scholars that reviewed it before it got published.I personally like the message translation rendering.

Sadly, when such scholar presents a wrong meaning of words and you read it, you may likely embrace it and say that is what God ministers to you. . The earlier you get this the better Bro. This is not about forcing you or telling you wrong or right.

It's quite true there is no such thing as a perfect translation and translation teams have a really hard job on their hands, like how to accurately translate a particular phrase or word, which mss variant best reflect the actual wordings and a myriads of other difficult task, there are two things I think are important to keep in mind
1) No major translation regardless of shortcomings, affects/distorts any of the core tenets of the Christain faith. Different translations might render the same phrase differently and there are sometimes some actual mistranslations(or could be better translated)but on the whole the core tenets are never affected. Bible translations do the job just fine within human and language limitation but I believe where the major problems come from is how we as readers accurately interpret the scriptures.
2) When we read the Bible we are meeting a real person. Like a teacher I admire once said, once you stop meeting the person of the risen Jesus in the scriptures, something has short circuited and you need to get back to base. The Bible is a living book and regardless of language limitations or translation mistakes, God can and will still speak to people through it. KJV with its mistakes has been a source of inspiration and hope for millions of people for over 400yrs and till date is still a solid translation.

A quick aside: I use major translations here to differentiate between translations that stay within the confines of orthodox Christianity and those done by Christain sects like the "new world translation" and the Mormons Bible. These sectarian types of translations have their own agendas outside of the Christianity so I try not to lump them together and they usually distort core tenets of the faith.

I'm also pretty sure you probably know most of what I wrote but I just wanted to give a quick clarification for others who might come across the post and might not know.

Maximus69:
Please check his two posts on the Religion section below.
The first was a direct attack on God's word.
While the second is pleading for assistance from fellow Nairalanders.
Please who often read such stories and feel touched in their hearts?
Is it his freethinker cohorts or those who believe in the existence of God?
How do you expect freethinkers who don't believe in divine blessings come to your assistance?
Is it not those who believe that God will repay them that will try to sow a seed?

Hmmmmmmmm presently i'm broke but if i had i'll have sent something worthwhile to him.
I just hope he learnt his lesson from this!

This is one of the most shallow thinkings I've seen in a long time. Using another man's misfortune as propaganda and to showcase some form of self righteousness.
You sir, need a new heart.

GRIMMJOE:
So you can't tell me the color you see?

I don't think you understand the problem statement.
Anyway,it's fine.Enjoy your week and stay safe out there.

GRIMMJOE:
Bros, tell us the color you see now, if you get it wrong then I'll prove the color is green.

Again sir, you are making the same mistake. You are still making a statement.
If you can't proof your statement, that's fine. But it would be great if you tried though.... we learn everyday.

GRIMMJOE:
What color is this? let's see how stupid you are.

What you are asking for is a statement not a proof.
Pi = 3.14 and is an irrational number is a statement not a proof. To proof that statement you can look at Lambert's work.

Likewise you can proof the image you posted is a particular color and not just make a statement. Probably you can start with what actually is color in terms of electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength within the visible spectrum and how the particular color you are talking about fall into a particular wavelength. How we our eyes perceive it, how light intensity affects our perception and how our brain responds to stimuli. You can then breakdown the color into its hue, saturation and brightness that distinguishes it from other possible perceived colours and Maybe chip in a couple of things from Newton's work.
Just a couple of ideas on how to go about it.

Care to try again sir?

GRIMMJOE:
If Jesus is God you won't need to open this thread, it will be well know, like the color green is green.

You can't see someone say proof the color green is green.

Actually you can. So can you proof to me what it means for a color to be green? And how do you know this?

donnie:
What religion will encourage the breaking of YAHUAH's commandments if not from satan?
What religion will discard all YAH's holy days and embrace pagan feasts which they call Holidays?
What religion will lie about the true image of the MESSIAH and cause the chosen people to be enslaved worshipping idols, the work of men's hands?
Where did Christmas, valentine, Thanksgiving, Easter, etc come from if not for Satan?

It's because of misinformation such as these that I sometimes wish more people were interested in history. History of christainity to be precise.

Going through the posts here, I don't think there's anything information that I pass across that would change your mind, so I pray the Holy Spirit Himself( the Spirit of truth) will reveal God's truth to you. Amen

incogni2o:
So whats the essence Sir if i may ask?

By the way the word of the Lord is a double edged sword.

I'm Sorry sir, I've realized it wasn't my place to say anything. My apologies about that.

Enjoy the rest of your week.

incogni2o:
Everyone trying thier best to destroy my(and Your) Bright Future will find themselves below me seeking my help in Future in Jesus mighty name.

Amen.

Thanks for this.

I kind of feel you miss the essence of the story sir

donnie:
Its no surprise since Christianity itself has its roots in paganism, sun worship and the worship of Baal. It was founded by satan.

Can you kindly elaborate on this? Why do you believe christainity is if pagan origin

techmo:
in Latin "Ge" ; earthly while "SUS" means Pigs (feel free to google it)

I hope my answer to MuttleyLaff above has helped clear up some of the misconceptions about the name Jesus and how Gesus is neither a Latin word nor the derivative of the word Jesus, but the concatenation of two different words from two different languages.
Have a good week.

Acehart:
I am sorry if this seemed like a disagreement. It was actually a response to the Lordreed. I’m sorry.

No problem boss... Have a good week

LordReed:
Lots of things. One that will instantly change the nature of the world is I would remove from people the power and desire to hurt themselves or one another.

Makes sense.. Have a good week

Acehart:
It is written in Ezekiel 33: “the Sovereign LORD, am the living God, I do not enjoy seeing sinners die”.

In the scriptures, the term “sinner” or “wicked” is used to describe a hardened offender, a habitual criminal, a regular felon, those whose actions or inactions resist the course of nature etc. No child falls into these descriptions because their innocence restrains them. Then if God does not enjoy seeing sinners condemned, how much more would He not enjoy the condemnation of the innocent?

I hear Abraham say to God: “ You could not possibly do such a thing: to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. You could not possibly do that! Won't the Judge of the whole earth do what is just?"”

All dead babies and children will go to Heaven instantly when they die.

Boss, I wasn't disagreeing with you.. I actually thought your answer was a good one, as I mentioned.

LordReed:
So an accountable child of 8years will suffer eternal punishment for stealing sweets? What kind of just judgement is that?

Riddle me this...if you were God for some time, what would you change in this world?

Acehart:
Earlier in the week, a Nigerian Magistrate decided to disqualify charges against a 15-year-old girl detained after killing a man who had attempted to rape her.

---

A just judge attends to every case according to its individual merits. If God is a just judge, He must deal with each person according to their individual merits.

When an infant dies, the destination of that infant is Heaven, instantly. Sin, age of accountability and predestination are the parameters are usually the parameters many of us stumble when we try to provide an answer for this very important question. It is only the scriptures that can provide a comforting answer to the anguish many have felt concerning the final destiny of their dead babies.

Let us see the nature of the Judge:

1. God’s thoughts are precious (Psalm 139)

2. God knows everything about us in details before our conception (Psalm 139, Jer. 1).

3. God is a personal creator, He made each baby (Isaiah 46).

4 God regards children; in Ezekiel 16, the Lord describes How he picked up the Israelites as if they were a infant abandoned in the field; He uses Israel to show us that all infants are His children (Ezekiel 16:20) - He loves all of them (Luke 18:16). He rebuked Jonah for praying for damnation of those could not discern their left hand and the right: little children and those mentally incapable of making right judgements.

You may ask when does a child stop being a child, and become accountable? When you consider the nature of everyone, the question should not be about “age of accountability” but the “condition of the individual”; a 30 years old person with down syndrome is “mentally a child”.

All children are unique in their development and exposure to the truth; so, a righteous judge has to consider these conditions. There is nowhere in the Bible where there is a stipulated “age of accountability”; so you have to take your eyes off the calendar. Only God knows the age of accountability.

Any child who hasn’t reached the point of moral culpability, to convincingly understand the difference between sin and salvation, will proceed to Heaven when such a child passes away.

This is actually are really good way of looking at it.
Personally I think as long as we can comfortably use the word "child" for an individual, then they are not yet morally culpable. But really I don't know

MuttleyLaff:
Those people underestimated in life, can often serve as correct guides to the ignorance and/or lack of vision of those underestimating them, lmao. Facts, do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Never underestimate the biblical awareness and sense of reality in seemingly quiet techmo persons. They are some of the most observant, absorbent persons of all, just like roteyy is, who has only typed once but is regularly in the background keeping tabs.

Happy Sunday. Firstly sir, I'm not sure how it came across that I underestimate techmo as a person. My comment about the nutjobs on YouTube was less about him and more about those people who like spreading wild theories on blogs or YouTube when they have no idea what they are talking about. My apologies to techmo if my remarks came as personal attacks to him as a person. It wasn't my intention.

To the crust of the matter.

in Latin "Ge" ; earthly while "SUS" means Pigs (feel free to google it)
techmo is not disputing how we got the name Jesus from Joshua, using English transliterated names, but is talking of the originals (i.e. Hebrew/Aramaic) and how the anglicised/English word, the name Jesus, means something else, as Iesous, in Greek, that's all, lmao.

Now, before you get set to do a come back, like I envisage you will do, lmao, please first consider and carefully think about, which, in writing, came first between Koine Greek and Latin?

Ok so first of all the Latin the transliteration for the English word Jesus is Iesus not Gesus. Sidenote" the letter gamma(gi) in greek is not equivalent to je in English"
Secondly, the only way you can get Gesus to mean earth(or wild) pig is to compound two words from 2 different languages GE meaning earth in Greek and SUS meaning pig in Latin. These are two different languages . Aside from the fact that Jesus is not a compound word,you can't mix two different languages and come up with a whole new meaning for a word in a third language. That is a very bad way of doing etymology.
Back to the case. As I said earlier Jesus is an English translations for the Latin word Iesus which is turn is a transliteration for the Greek word Iesous which is turn a transliteration of the Hebrew word Yeshua.
Why begin our transliterate from greek rather than directly from Hebrew? That's because the entire new testament was written in greek not Hebrew, so we begin our transliteration with how His name was written in the new testament. There is simply no manuscript evidence that shows that the the new testament authors used Yeshua, all our manuscript show his name was written as Iesous or the nomina sacra "ΙΣ" ...Also all the earliest church writings( like the Didache,dated to the first century) and church fathers from Polycarp(disciple of apostle John) to Clement(disciple of Apostle Peter) all writing in Greek used Iesous, which in turn first appeared in the Septuagint [greek translation of the old testament used by the apostles and the early church].
We use the name Joshua when we are transliterating from the Hebrew old testament and we use the name Jesus when we are transliterating from the Greek new testament(except for places where the new testament author is is referring to Joshua son of nun, so as to avoid confusion by modern readers).
Both names mean the same thing, just as Jacob and James, Mary and Maria, Judas and Jude.


An Aside: I'll like to point to a growing concern where some people are beginning to require others to use Jesus's Jewish name Yeshua(or Yehoshua) because they believe there is something inherently wrong with the name Jesus. This is wrong, because to be consistent we would have to change all the Greek names in the Greek new testament to Jewish names and would have to eventually require every one to read the entire Bible in biblical Hebrew (which would pose a problem for most people I believe). God does not require us to read his word in one particular language because even though salvation started from the Jews , it is available for everyone everywhere with out anybody needing to become a Jew (Jerusalem council Acts 15). Unlike our Muslim brothers and friends that have to learn Arabic,The Bible can be read in any language on earth and the name of the Lord can be called in any Language given to man from "Iesous in greek" to "Jesus in English" to "Jesu in Yoruba" to "Yēsū in Chinese" or "Yeshua in shortened Hebrew", as long as you are calling on the name with the second person of the trinity at heart, the Person behind the name listens to us. The apostle Paul had to lock heads with the Jewish believers who were trying to add unneeded requirements on the gentile believers by requiring them to become Jews in terms of circumcisions, observing Passover etc hence the need for the first ecumenical council in Acts 15 and the ruling of the apostles against it.
Saying people must use Yeshua instead of Jesus is also Judaizing.

The first two answers on hermeneutics.stackexchange give were good breakdown of how the two names diverge
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4122/if-joshua-can-be-translated-why-is-the-name-of-jesus-translated-jesus-but-his
Below is the breakdown of the earliest complete new testament codex we have "Codex Sinaticus".
https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Sinaticus/sinaticus.html

techmo:
in Latin "Ge" ; earthly while "SUS" means Pigs (feel free to google it)

however in Hebrew Yehoshua comes from the root ישע yod-shin-'ayin, meaning "to deliver, save, or rescue". ... The name Yeshua is a shortened version of the name Yehoshua or Joshua and is the literal Hebrew word for Salvation...

Hebrew don't have any word called Jesus, what they have is Yeshua kindly google that too

Ok, so I'm a bit tired this night to walk you through how we got the name Jesus from Joshua ,so I'll give you two articles to go through
1)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)
I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia but I think this one is ok
2)https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/12/jesus.html

techmo:
why not tackle me on points by points bases cos I have your time

Okay... Let's start with the first one.
Can you walk me through how you got Jesus means wild pig in greek and latin