(Hut, Booth or Exhibit #8)
2nd — 4th Centuries CE:
Onomastics of the name Jesus –
Unlike Any Other Biblical Names
P-45, papyrus ca. 255 C.E. earliest extant source for NHM 20.24-32; 21.13-19; 25.41 – 26.39 and other fragments of the NT
‘Historical Jesus’ — an Oxymoron
PRO-Tor•âh′, 1st century, historical, Pharisee-Jew-Rib′i: Rib′i Yәho•shu′a,
versus (lә-hav•dil′) the
ANTI-Tor•âh′ (“antinomian”), post-135 C.E. Hellenist counterfeit-image syncretized by the Roman occupiers: Jesus (= Yesh”u).
The Greek word for God / Deity, and translated as such more than 1,000 times in NT, is Θεος (Theos), translated into Latin as Deus.
Deus is a cognate of Greek “*div- “to shine,” thus cognate with Gk. dios “divine” and Zeus, and L. deus “god” (O.Latin deivos); see Zeus.” (“deva,” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=d&p=16, 2010.05.31)
“Dios — noun, masculine; genitive singular of Zeus — of Zeus” (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/grkol-3-R.html, 2010.05.31)
supreme god of the ancient Greeks, 1706, from Gk., from PIE *dewos- “god” (cf. L. deus “god,” O. Pers. daiva- “demon, evil god,” O.C.S. deivai, Skt. deva-), from base *dyeu- “to gleam, to shine;” also the root of words for “sky” and “day” (see diurnal). The god-sense is originally “shining,” but “whether as originally sun-god or as lightener” is not now clear.” (“Zeus,” http://www.etymonline.com, 2010.05.31).
Thus, Hellenist Roman NT Theos = Greek Hellenist Zeus = Roman Jupiter (see Acts 4.12-13), the theos native to Roman Hellenists (who became, in 135 C.E., the earliest and original Christians) and to which the Hellenist Roman Hellenists dedicated (Yerushalayim renamed to) Aelia Capitolina.
Θεος (Theos) ⇒ Deus ⇒ Zeus. The NT explicitly syncretizes the worship of Zeus to their Hellenist (Christian Church) Jzeus!!!
The two (historical Rib′i Yәho•shu′a versus, lә-hav•dil′, Roman-Hellenized, Christian Church Jzeus) are mutually contradictory and exclusive, intractably antithetical, polar opposites! Logically, these two diametric opposites must, therefore, be rigorously distinguished from each other. Following either necessarily requires resolute rejection of the antithetical opposite.
Who Was ‘Historical Jesus’
Jzeus the ‘Nazarene’ ? Messiah Yeshua?
What was his authentic Name & Face?
‘Historical Jzeus’ or ‘Jzeus the ‘Nazarene’ — was, in reality, the Pәrush•i′ Tor•âh′ teacher known among religious Jews of his era as Rib′i Yәho•shu′a or, in the Aramaic popular at that time, Rib′i Yәshu′a—as engraved on the ossuary of his brother, Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ “ha-Tza•diq′” Bën-Dâ•wid′ (see photo in the Mâ•shi′akh page of this History Museum).
Even the Christian NT acknowledges and documents that Rib′i Yәho•shu′a was a “rabbi”—a “Pharisee” Jew (“Orthodox” in our modern era). After being misrepresented for millennia (since the 135 C.E. apostasy) as the anti-Tor•âh′ Jzeus by Christianity & the Church, the authentic Rib′i Yәho•shu′a is today fulfilling the Messianic Issues ascribed by ancient religious Jews (as opposed to apostates andor later gentile Christians) to the Mashiakh. Our Distance Learning is designed for educating Christians about Torah. Find more information about his name — and his face — by taking our tour of the ‘Nәtzarim Quarter’ virtual village. (Follow the signs at the end of major web pages.)
Our books and papers also document that the earliest extant source texts for both LXX and the NT are the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (for these and all of the other earliest extant source documents see The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM)) — sources extensively redacted by the post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Christians. Consequently, it shouldn’t be surprising that the name Ribi Yehoshua (Ben-Nun) in LXX is now different from any other name ending with ayin in Tan”kh.
Thus, the question must be asked, “Why was Yәho•shu′ a (and its diminuitive, Yәshu′ a), also a likely victim of gentile retroactive redaction to match the Greek Iæ′ sous) the only name in Tan”kh ending in ay′ in to ‘evolve’ its ‘s’ ending (Jesus)? The same rule which produced other names ending in ayin should have produced the Greek Ιοσου (Iosou) — not Ιησους (Iæsous, from which Jesus derives (with an “o” — not an “æ” — in the first syllable, and minus the Zeus-like “s” ending)!
Why, in LXX, does the identical Greek name reach us as “Joshua,” not Jesus???
That Jesus is Zeus is indisputable. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the English “god” traces back through the Old Teutonic Tiu—surviving in Tuesday ⇒ Roman Jupiter ≡ Latin Deus ≡ Greek Θεος (Theos) and finally (and probably shockingly) ⇒ Greek Ζευς (Zeus), for which the gen. form is Διος (Dios).
When a Hellenist Roman—or even an assimilated Hellenist Jew—used their respective terms for the Divine, they were not thinking the same thing as a religious Jew thinking in Hebrew!
Usage of the Greek and Latin terms by the earliest (gentile) Christians must be kept in mind. Thus, in the Christian NT as it had earlier been in the LXX (!), for the Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist-Christian Church writers and their Greek-speaking gentile Hellenist-Christian Church audience, they both understood even the Bible and “commandments” and “temple” of the Jews only within the Greek or Latin terms of their own text and frame of reference, Θεος ≡ Ζευς, even in obvious Judaic settings.
A moment’s reflection is illuminating. It is identical today. When a Christian today thinks of “God,” (s)he is thinking of the Trinity and Jesus (and, despite denials, that is ≡ Θεος ≡ Ζευς). This is definitely not what an Orthodox Jew has in mind when (s)he thinks of י–ה!
For example, unlike the Hebrew Bible, the Greek NT text indisputably demonstrates that their original Greek NT read (look it up!), and Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist-Christians understood and believed:
Mt. 1.23 “being interpreted is, ‘Θεος ≡ Ζευς with us’.”
Mt. 4.3 – “If you are the son of Θεος ≡ Ζευς…”
Mt. 5.9 – “they shall be called the children of Θεος ≡ Ζευς”
Indeed, the entirety of the NT accounts of Jesus—every reference to god, over 300 of them—revolve around Θεος ≡ Ζευς.
We find (Acts 10.38) “how Θεος ≡ Ζευς anointed Ιησους (Iæsous = Jesus).”
Interestingly, the Greek verb επιστρεφω can as easily mean “return toward” as “turn toward,” which the KJ/V equates to converting. Thus, Acts 15.19 speaks of a revival of idolatry among the gentiles: “εθνος are (re)turned to Θεος ≡ Ζευς.”
“Speaking in tongues” is then revealed (Acts 2.11) as “wonderful works of Θεος ≡ Ζευς” and (Acts 10.46) “speak with tongues, and magnify Θεος ≡ Ζευς.”
As a Greek-speaking Hellenist, Paul the Apostate and father of Christianity was acutely aware that the gentile Roman public equated Θεος with Ζευς—with Ιησους ≡ Jesus. As Paul the Hellenist Apostate deceiver duplicitously blurred the difference to “market” his message among the Hellenist Roman idolaters and further his own fame:
Rom. 1.1 – the gospel of Θεος ≡ Ζευς
Rom. 1.4 – declared to be the Son of Θεος ≡ Ζευς
Rom. 3.29 – Θεος ≡ Ζευς is only of the Jews?
Rom. 4.3 – Abraham believed Θεος ≡ Ζευς
Rom. 6.11 – alive unto Θεος ≡ Ζευς through Ιησους ≡ Jesus
I Cor. 1.2 – unto the Church of Θεος ≡ Ζευς
I Cor. 3.16 – you are the temple of Θεος ≡ Ζευς and the spirit of Θεος ≡ Ζευς dwells
I Cor. 11.3 – the head of Christ is Θεος ≡ Ζευς
II Cor. 4.4 – Christ, who is the image of Θεος ≡ Ζευς
II Cor. 6.16 – Paul the Apostate and father of Christianity asks, “how can you put an idol in the temple of Θεος ≡ Ζευς? You are the temple of Θεος ≡ Ζευς! (I.e., can you put an idol in yourself?) This is the context of similar remarks (e.g., I Thes. 1.9, et al).
In Col. 1.15, Paul the Apostate and father of Christianity equates Ιησους ≡ Jesus to “the image of the invisible Θεος ≡ Ζευς.” who will (3.1) “sit on the right hand of Θεος ≡ Ζευς.” Describing Θεος ≡ Ζευς as invisible does not equate, lә-hav•dil′ , to י–ה!
The equating of Θεος ≡ Ζευς with Ιησους ≡ Jesus is also clear in Titus where (2.10) “Θεος ≡ Ζευς (is) our Savior” which is identical (2.13) “our Savior Ιησους ≡ Jesus Christ.” Elementary logic dictates the intent:
let a = Θεος ≡ Ζευς
b = “our Savior”, and
c = Ιησους ≡ Jesus
If a=b and b=c then a=c!!!
In every one of the more than 300 instances in the NT alone where one finds the word “God” in KJ/V, the original text reads the blurring term “Θεος” ≡ Ζευς.
“It could hardly have escaped the translators of the LXX, who did their work 2 centuries before Nәtzarim Hebrew Matityahu ha-Leivi, that a transliteration of יהושע was strikingly similar to ιασους.” (The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 1.21.1).
“The aorist active of the Greek verb to heal is ιασους, in which the temporal augment changes the initial vowels to ια… The most probable explanation for the anomalous Iæsous is a conflation between Ιοσου, which is generated by the usual rules of Greek, and the phrase ης Ζευς, the most popular and powerful Roman god, also called Jupiter, finally yielding Ιησους = Jesus.” (The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) subnote 91 to note 1.21.1).
The NT goes even futher to avoid its connection to Zeus—and proving its Roman adaptation. Instead of transliterating the literal reading—Hellenist (Greek) Ζευς (Zeus)—in Acts 4.12 & 13, they morphed it into the Roman Jupiter”!!!
So why did this name — Ιησους—alone, redacted by 2nd-4th century misojudaic gentile Roman Christians of Displacement Theology, turn out unlike any other similar name in the Hebrew (i.e., ending in ay′ in)—and so eerily reminiscent of morphing the Egyptian Goddess “Isis” and the most popular Greek-Roman God “Zeus” (≡Jupiter)? There is no acceptable answer. (For documentation and further details see Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).