LOGIC CHART OF PAGAN SOURCES FOR THE NAME, “JESUS”:

LOGIC CHART OF PAGAN SOURCES FOR THE NAME, "JESUS":

Iasus, Iasion and Iasius were the three names for the two sons of Zeus. (If this seems confusing, that is just the way paganism operates.) These three names are similar in sound and/or spelling to Ieso (or Iaso), the goddess of healing which is similar to Issa (or Issi), the surname for Shiva, the pagan deity of India which made its way into the Roman Empire by the fourth century.  One can easily see that a combination of  Ieso, Iasus, Iasius, Issa and Zeus would result in a name similar to the Greek name, Iesous which is very much like Esus (Mars) the Galic pagan deity.  When Iesous is combined with Isu (pronounced exactly as the Latin,  "Jesu") the son of  Isis (pronounced as "Eesis") we will likely find the shortened Old English spelling, Iesus.  When the letter, "J" was invented in the late 15th centuryIesus was changed to its final form which is used today, "Jesus" after the translation of the 1611 King James Bible. Thus, the Name, "Jesus" is less than 400 years old.  These striking similarity of the source name, Iesous, to all the other pagan names can not be pushed aside as mere coincidence.  In light of Scriptural evidence that the Messiah’s actual name was Yahoshua (Yahshua is the short form), these pagan associations provide the most logical explaination for the source of the modern Greek name of Jesus.  

Although a gradual transitional process may have occured to some extent, as the name, "J-sus" evolved, from as early as the second centruy, it is likely that Constantine, the Emperor of the Roman Empire during the fourth century, "officially" had thrown out the real name of the Messiah (Yahoshua) and had replaced it with the Greek name, "Iesous".  He knew that by choosing a name which would sound very much like all of them would be the most politically correct solution.  Thus, each of the various pagan belief systems would feel as though the new Roman Catholic Assembly (called "Church" after 1650) was an extension of their own faith.  Certainly, if he had chosen any one name from a particular group to use as the new substitute name for the Messiah, all the other groups would have been offended.  Knowing the political character of Constantine, and seeing that it fits the general pattern of deception used by the early "Church" in other instances, this is occurance is not only logical, but highly probable.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in messianic/faith. Bookmark the permalink.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. SHALOM!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s