Problems on a dark road and A look at our ego-centric world

On our trip in the South of France we got stuck in the darkness not finding one of the resorts where we had booked to stay for a week. The four "alarm"lights were put on flickering whilst I went out of the car for searching someone who could help us.
My wife and the dog stayed in the car and got middle fingers up from drivers speeding along our car and having their horns blast. After more than twenty minutes there was some car stopping; Out came an African 'rapper' who was friendly to help us on our way.

Were there no French people willing to stop because of fear? Did they not want to have a confrontation in the full darkness of the late evening?
Or was it fear of judgment, guilt, shame, blame – all forms of attack that drove them to quickly pass the car which had surprised them in the middle of the night?

Clearly ego believes that by giving one loses what is given and today people prefer only to receive and not to give away. They were eager to have the horns blow, and give us the idea that we were a danger on the road. (Which we were in a certain way, there in the full darkness.)

But how does it come that it took such a long time before someone was willing to help? Flickering danger lights had to give a sign that we were in need. Though a confrontation with someone in need does not seem to be something a West-European wants to be to come in contact with in these times of abundance, where not many want to share with others. Imagine that we would ask something they had to share?
The speeding drivers wanted to make us feel that we had to be crazy to stand still in the darkness. Their ego was so quick to pass judgment and offer guilt, and in a certain way they succeeded by the amount of cars and noise they made to give us that annoyed feeling of stupidity and fear.

Perhaps their ego believes that making others guilty cleanses one of one’s own guilt. It projects hate in an effort to purge hate. The ego’s automatic form of defence is attack. It reasons that the more it attacks the less liable to attack it becomes.  What it gives, it loses.

That is one of the great problems of our society today. The individuals their ego has grown so much, there is no place for an other human being nor for some divine Creator. They want to be their own boss and to be in full control themselves.

"Leave the other person alone with problems and don't worry about what may have happened,"

 they think and continue their selfish path.

Jahushua, Joshua, Jeshua or Jesus an Immanuel or God with us an incarnated God or a human being?

There are several people who claim that Jesus is God entre autre because he is called Immanuel and Jesus. They seem to forget that before and after Jesus was born there have been other people with the same name.

The name of Jesus is not the original name of the Nazarene master teacher. His real Hebrew name is Jeshua, a short form or nickname for Jehashua or in old spelling Yahushua. Jeshua is actually the same Hebrew name as Joshua which comes from Je-ho-shua and which means “God saves”.  

It is not because parents where caling their child Immanuel or Emmanuel, which means “God with us” that they would have been convinced that their child would be God having come in their family. All those Immanels and Immanuels are not an incarnation of God, like so many Christians want us to believe.

It is interesting as a sideline to note that Joshua is renamed by Moses from his original name which means “He saves” to “God saves” presumably to underline that it is God that saves not man:

“And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua” (Nu 13:16).

The Jeshua born in Bethlehem, brought up in Nazareth and teaching a lot in Galilee, who lived in that region at the same time as the rebellious gangleader who lived in the mountain caves and had the same first name Jeshua (or if you prefer Jesus) was, like the rebel not God incarnated because of his name. Because then God would have been walking at least in two people, the rebellious rabbi or master teacher Jesus and the political rebel, Jesus who fought against the Roman invaders.

The fighter Jeshua or Jesus was hoping to save his  people from the Romans. The prophet Jeshua who taught about love, wanted to save all people from the curse of death. Both could be considered saviours, though none of them was the Saviour God. Both could exist or be there at the same time in the same region. Both could be seen and heard about by many. Several people had put their hope on one or the other man with the name Jeshua (God saves) looking forward to be saved from Roman tirrany. It was because God allowed them to be there, that they could be there.

People can help others and even can save lives of others (like surgeons and first aid workers do), but in the end it is always because God allows those people to be there and to have such gifts to save someone. Without God nobody can do something, or save someone.

The name Jeshua or Jesus was and is still given by people to honour God and to show Him gratitude. But that name does not indicate that Jesus or Chesu of the first century of this Common Era would have been God having come in the flesh. The same, all those who, today, are called or have the name Immanuel, Emmanuel, Jesus, Jezus, Chesu, Jeshua, Jahushua, etc. are not a god or the God incarnated, but are simply human beings of flesh and blood.

After his death and resurrection Jesus (Jeshua) showed his wounds as a proof he was the man of flesh and blood who was previously impaled, and the proof he was not a spirit, like his heavenly Father Who is a Spirit.