Sunday, October 03, 2010

How much of Jesus in the Bible

Translate Request has too much data Parameter name: request Translate Request has too much data Parameter name: request

Before we get to the meat of the conversation, first a little meaningful foreplay...

Do you think that when Jesus said, unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh you have no life in you, he meant his actual flesh and blood?

When a certain Zen master told one of his disciples who understood a certain part of his teachings, "You have my flesh"; and to another, who understood a different part, "You have my bones". That all that remained of him was his blood splattering in the air as he stood before them talking?

Jesus and the Zen master were both speaking symbolically (using literal sensory objects to illustrate spiritual processes).

Eating Jesus’ flesh means understanding the basic aspects of his teachings. Drinking his blood means understanding the more subtle advanced parts of his teachings. You have no life in you means you have no spiritual understanding in you. The people he was speaking to were obviously alive so is he talking about literal life when he says "you have no life in you"?.

But literal minded people are so conditioned to taking everything literally they think he’s talking about actually eating his physical body and drinking his physical blood! (As if when someone says, "I had to go all the way to bum f*#*ck Egypt", bum f*#*ck Egypt was mistaken to be a literal place! Or a spiritual path was mistaken to be an actual path through the woods!).

Literal minded people are so fixated on the literal meaning they can't see the spiritual meaning! If they do catch a glimpse of something spiritual they see it as something that doesn’t matter because they see matter as the only thing that matters. So if it’s not matter, to them, it doesn’t matter!

At the beginning of Christianity there was an on going conflict between the spiritual-minded Christians (later called heretic Christians) and the literal-minded Christians (later called Orthodox Christians).

The Roman Dictator Constantine and newly converted Greco-Roman priests, at the 1st council of Nicea, (in what is now modern day Turkey) created Roman Christianity in the 4th century AD. Constantine convened the council because; the various Christians groups had contradictory beliefs about the nature of God and Jesus and were fighting and killing each other over!

This situation was destabilizing portions of Constantine’s empire, so he ordered all the Christian clergy throughout the empire to attend this meeting so they could try to create some type of standard doctrine that they all could agree on: uniting the feuding factions and stopping the instability and bloodshed.

The spiritual-minded Christians held the doctrine that Christ was a spirit and was only operating through the body of Jesus and that although Jesus’ body could die, Christ, the spirit couldn’t die (sounds reasonable to me). The literal-minded Christians, were exclusively focused on the man, Jesus, his death and the resurrection of his dead body as proof that he was the only begotten Son of God or as some thought, God in the flesh! The spiritual-minded Christians said Jesus wasn’t of the same substance as God (the Father, the source) because he was created after God, while the literal-minded Christians said he was.

A vote was taken on which doctrine would be the accepted one. The Spiritual-minded Christians were out voted by the literal-minded Christians and were banished from the proceedings and branded heretics because they wouldn’t accept the doctrine of Jesus, the physical man, as Christ (Spirit) or the resurrection of his physical body from the dead.

Catholic was chosen for this new brand of Roman Christianity because it meant universal or pertaining to all. There was to be only one God, one Son of God, one church, one doctrine and one creed as there was to be only one Emperor for all the citizens of the Roman Empire. This was the origin of the 1st Orthodox Church of Christianity: the Roman Catholic Church

As I said the spiritual-minded Christians (lumped together under the name "Gnostics" and "Heretics") were focused on the spiritual identity of Jesus, called Christ while the literal-minded Christians were focused on the physical identity of Christ, called Jesus Christ. As if Christ was Jesus' last name when it’s really a title translated from the Greek, Christos, from the Hebrew, Messiah, meaning anointed (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).

So his name would be Jesus the Christ, or the anointed, not Jesus Christ (anointed). The name Jesus is translated from the Greek, Iesous, from the Hebrew, Yeshua or Yehoshua, or in English Joshua (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).

Further confirmation that Jesus' real name was Yeshua, the name that the public and most Christians aren't aware of, resides in an article in the New York Times 10-22-2002 edition about a recent archeological find archeologists were trying to link to Jesus. They discovered a burial box with the Aramaic phrase "James (Ya' Akov), son of Joseph (Yosef), brother of Jesus (Yeshua)" inscribed on it. (I think the box was later prove to be a fake) Note Jesus' real name “Yeshua” as it’s translated from the Aramaic inscription into English on the box.

So you see his real name wasn’t Jesus but Yeshua (for all of you Christians who think that Jesus is the only name you can be saved by). Since he was the son of Joseph (Yosef) he would have been referred to as Yeshua Bar Yosef or Ben Yosef (Bar and Ben meaning, son or heir in Hebrew). In English his name should be Joshua not Jesus (Jesus = Joshua) Strong's Bible Lexicon.

So why did Christian scholars translate his name as Jesus rather than as Joshua as they did Joshua the son of Nun in the Old Testament whose name is also Jesus?

Was it because in the Septuagint (the original Greek bible or Old Testament, translated from Hebrew around the 3 BC) Joshua's name is translated as Jesus?

Could it be because there were other Jesus' in the Bible, most notably, Joshua the son of Nun, who inherited the leadership of Israel from Moses?

Is it because in an effort to make Jesus and his name unique (the only name you can be saved by) they didn’t want people to know that his name or maybe even he wasn’t really that unique? (The only begotten Son of God)

Here is the meaning of the name Joshua the son of Nun in Strong's Bible Lexicon,

"Joshua = Jehovah is his help, or Jehovah the Savior (or God in the flesh, El-Veasey). The son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, the successor of Moses as the leader of Israel. He is called Jehoshua in Num. 13:16 (A.V.) and Jesus in Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8 (R.V. Joshua)".

"The meaning of Nun = "fish" or "posterity" 1) father of Joshua the successor of Moses".

The fish was also the symbol of Jesus and the early Christians. So was Joshua the original Hebrew messiah?

Some scholars think so! See "The Cult of Joshua, Christianity Revealed" by Dr. M D Magee

Here's a list of the various names and persons that mean Jesus in the Bible according to Strong's Bible Lexicon.

Jesus (Joshua) 2, Jesus (Justus) 1; 975 Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation" Jesus, the Son of God, the Savior of mankind, God incarnate.

1) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ.

2) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8).

3) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Luke. 3:29).

4) Jesus surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associated with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11).

Take special note of Jesus # 2 Jesus Barabbas and the meaning of Barabbas: “Bar means son and Abba means father. Barabbas i.e., son of a father or the father. The notorious robber whom Pilate proposed to condemn to death instead of Jesus, whom he wished to release, in accordance with the Roman custom (John 18:40; Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19). But the Jews were so bent on the death of Jesus that they demanded that Barabbas should be pardoned (Matt. 27:16-26; Acts 3:14). This Pilate did” (Easton's Bible Dictionary).

Note that Barabbas's first name is left out in these stories. Was it left out on purpose?

Jesus was referred to as "the son of the father" but the meaning of Barabbas shows that there were two "Jesus' sons of the father" on trial in the Gospel story! So how can we be sure which one was the "real" Jesus, when the translators left out the fact that Barabbas' first name was also Jesus?

It seems that Yeshua was only translated as Jesus when it was referring to the Jesus the writers wanted us to believe was Jesus, preventing us from seeing that there was more then one person named "Jesus", or referred to as "the son of the father" on trial in that story. Is that why Barabbas' first name was omitted from the story? For more on Jesus Barabbas

(See "The Mystery of Barabbas" 1993 Dr. M.D. Magee []).

We should have figured out by the Gospel writers repeated emphasis that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, that there must have been others called the Son of God or there would have been no need for that emphasis!

There was the Greek, Hercules, who had an earthly mother and the God, Zeus for a heavenly father, or the Egyptian Pharaohs, who were actually considered to be Gods, because they were sons of Gods or the ancient Emperors of China who were called the sons of heaven (God).

But check out this spotlight that the gospel of Luke shines on who the original Son of God was while giving Jesus’ supposed genealogy:

Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God"!

Adam was the son of God? Holy Moly!

Here we have an example of one of the many contradictions between the Old and New Testaments.

In the Old Testament Adam is depicted as a creation of God not a Son of God. But in the New Testament gospel of Luke, Adam is depicted as the original Son of God thousands of years before the time of Jesus!

But the Genesis text plainly states that God created man not a son! Gen 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (King James Version).

But Luke just as plainly states that Adam was the Son of God and chronologically the first Son of God, showing that the writer of Luke didn't view Jesus as the only Son of God! But in an effort to make Jesus (Joshua) appear special or unique, the Roman Christian clergy made Jesus the only begotten Son of God (whatever that means) to make him distinct from other sons of God. But how many ways can a father (even a spiritual father) beget his sons?

(Begotten is from Beget. Beget meaning to procreate as the father: Sire: To produce as an effect or outgrowth (Webster’ Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). So all sons of God are begotten by their fathers!

So God had two sons Adam and Jesus! Interesting! But wait I’m not done yet. Check this out!

Gen 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown".

Wow! God had more than one son? More like a few sons! Did you know that? Even more reason for the church fathers to invent the “only begotten son” slogan. What do you think?

And for all you armchair theologians who think that the title "sons of God" means angels. Angel is from the Greek, Angelos, and literally means messenger (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) as in "messenger of God", not "son of God" as some of you may have been brainwashed to believe. If angel meant son, that would make Jesus an angel instead of the son of God and your Lord and Savior!

The original messenger of the Gods was the ancient Egyptian God of wisdom, Thoth or Tuhuti, who brought the message of wisdom and truth to the people. He’s the original model for the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit. He's also the model for the Greek God Hermes and the Roman God Mercurius, the source of the English word, Mercury.

But let's move on.

As a matter of fact there were many messiahs (anointed ones) in the Old Testament. All the kings of ancient Israel were messiahs or anointed ones. During their coronation their heads were anointed with oil by the high priest. That's why Jesus was mocked as the "King of the Jews" because the messiah was expected to be a king, like David and Solomon, who would restore the kingdom of Judah to its original glory.

Israel’s first messiah in the sense of a deliverer was the Persian king, Cyrus, who set them free from Babylonian captivity as the messiah was expected to set them free from Roman domination during Jesus' time. The prophet Isaiah even calls Cyrus the anointed (Messiah) of God.

Isaiah 45:1 “Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut”.

As I said, the original messiah and the forerunner of Jesus, was Joshua the son of Nun, the successor of Moses, who actually led the children of Israel into the Promised Land of Canaan. This places Moses in the position of the forerunner of the messiah. A pattern adopted by the fathers of early Orthodox Church and applied to John the Baptist and Jesus in a successful attempt to give their fledgling new religious cult historical validity, by connecting it to a more established religion with a long textual history.

So you see Jesus wasn't the only Jesus or messiah in the bible!

So how many Jesus’ are in the Bible?

Let me leave you with the list of Jesus' to simmer in your minds!

1) Jesus Barabbas the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ.

2) Joshua the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8).

3) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Luke. 3:29).

4) Jesus surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associated with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11).

You may find even be more Jesus' than this if you look hard enough!

It's so easy to turn a “deaf” ear and a “blind” eye to obvious contradictions in our religious conceptions when we accept what we’ve been conditioned to believe without realistically thinking it through! But We All Deserve Better Than That don't we?


Roland E Bouchard said...

Re. Jesus Christ v. Jesus Barabbas

All too lengthy to render a full or complete Comment regarding your 'foreplay'... I give to you here Part 1.

In the 1st instance, “Jesus Barabbas”, written in the original Greek ‘Holy’ Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) but, that His name [Jesus] was removed or omitted from the Latin ‘translation’ (around 384 c. e.) and most of the subsequent ‘translations’ thereafter, -leaving us later-day people with only Barabbas instead.

“Barabbas” is not a proper name or surname per se’ (any more so than is “Christ”), -it is, rather, an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in ‘the Father of us all’ or, ‘God’, if you will).

“Christ” first (and only) appeared in literature i.e. the ‘Holy’ Gospels and/or New Testaments. These ‘books’ were written no less than ten years (and re-written many times thereafter... up to their canonization in the 4th century) i.e. after the infamous crucifixion of ‘the descendant of David and the Jewish mashiach’. Therefore, it is obvious that no Jew, during the reign of Pontius Pilate, ever knew, or saw, or even heard of “Christ”.

“Christ”, -supposedly a Greek ‘translation’ of the Hebrew word ‘mashiach’, without etymological foundation or basis within the Greek language, customs or history and, with added meaning to with Jews do not subscribe.

(to be continued)

Roland E Bouchard said...

Re. Jesus Christ v. Jesus Barabbas

Part 2.

The Jews Did ‘choose’ Jesus [Barabbas] over ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’ (who’s name, by the way, was not “Jesus”. But, I am getting ahead of this explanation and full story.

Perhaps a more interesting question might be: Why is there so little known about Jesus Barabbas?

Portrayed and described in the ‘Holy’ Gospels as “a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist” (without evidence, much less proof), He seems to appear (as if from out of nowhere) upon the stage of ecclesiastical history’s most dramatic and celebrated hour, like a potted plant of poison ivy, saying nothing whatsoever to anybody, nobody said anything to Him, is incongruously “released” from prison nevertheless. Would Pilate actually risk having his head delivered to Tiberius on a platter for ‘releasing a notorious insurrectionist’???

Insurrection? What insurrection? (So much for Jesus Barabbas’ “notoriety”.)

In order to understand why the Jews demanded that ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’ be crucified and that Jesus Barabbas (the Son of God) be ‘released’ and unharmed... one must needs to know Jewish history...

Briefly, Saul, son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, became the first ‘anointed’ king of the Jews (altering their ancient custom of having ‘God’ as their only ruler over them). King Saul was eventually ‘replaced’ by the ‘anointment’ of David, son of Jesse, of the tribe of Judah. Some years later, in a battle against the Philistines, the former king (Saul) “fell upon his own sword”, -ostensibly to avoid captured and being made sport of by his enemy. This abominable and sinful act by Saul brought everlasting dishonor and shame upon his heirs and descendants.

King David was succeeded by the ‘anointment’ of his son, Solomon.

King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam, -however, ten tribes revolted against or away from Rehoboam, as well as the heretofore theocratic from of governance of David and Solomon. The ten tribes thus established a parallel secular form of governance, -headed by Jeroboam instead. This ruckus schism among the Jews continued down through the centuries... indeed, into the days of Herod.

(to be continued)

Roland E Bouchard said...

Re. Jesus Christ v. Jesus Barabbas

Part 3.

Shortly after the death of the Roman installed and supported Herod, one Judas the Galilean, -long marginalized descendant of David and Jewish mashiach, seized the opportunity to rise up an insurrection to overthrow the broken up secular government of the Herod’s sons.

Judas the Galilean was killed in that battle, -but another rose up... and another... and another... until, at last, the wealthy and educated Jews scattered themselves abroad, the temple at Jerusalem was razed to the ground and the Jewish nation ceased to exist, -in 70 c. e.)

In the meantime, What, pray tell, do you think Saul of Tarsus, -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul, -the actual creator and founder of ‘Christianity’, was doing... (besides “persecuting Christians”, -at a time when there was no such thing as a ‘Christian’, -only ‘the descendant of David/Jewish mashiach’ and his zealous followers) during ‘those days’?

Saul of Tarsus, the namesake and descendant of the shamed and dishonored king Saul of the tribe of Benjamin (-see Romans 11:1), -a schizophrenic and flunk out Pharisaic student of Gamaliel, tent maker and hired temple thug (“persecuting ‘Christians’”..., -at a time when there were no ‘Christians’... yet).

Apparently, Saul had an ‘epiphany’ while on the road to Damascus, -in feverish pursuit of another ‘descendant of David and new Jewish mashiach’ and his zealous followers... not as the ‘Holy’ Gospels would cunningly and cleverly mislead naïve and unsuspecting souls into ‘believing’: “Jesus Christ” of his (Saul’s invention)... in stead of the ‘given’ facts on the matter. (A ‘fact’ that seems to be ‘forgotten’ by many here... is that Saul’s ‘epiphany’ occurred after ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’ was “crucified”... some years earlier. Given that publication of such ‘documentation’ occurred no earlier that ten years after the actual event. Therefore, Saul’s ‘epiphany’ was not of “Jesus Christ” yet... rather, it could only be of ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’... the very man Saul of Tarsus hated for his entire life-time and, plotted revenge against. It was Saul, who was responsible for the salacious capture, in the ‘Garden of Gethsemane’ (see Mark 14:51-52), arrest, trial and crucifixion of ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’, -not “Jesus Christ”. Judas the Galilean, became “Jesus Christ”... i.e. after he was de-Judaized and converted into a Greek philosophical notion and myth. (‘Scholars’ seem to never recognized and raise this point.)

Roland E Bouchard said...

Re. Jesus Christ v. Jesus Barabbas

Part 4.

In a stroke of sick or evil genius, Saul succeeded in obliterating the name of Judas the Galilean and office of the Jewish mashiach, as well as relegating Jesus Barabbas (the Son of God) into the un-searchable and everlasting obscurity... by simply, cunningly and cleverly combining the actual name and ‘holiness’ of Jesus [Barabbas] together with attributing the same to the otherwise unnamed and renamed Judas the Galilean into “Jesus Christ”.

I hope this provides reciprocal ‘foreplay’ to warrant further response from you...


Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.

Renaissance Brother said...


I appreciate you posting my article but you neglected to add my name as the author.

I use various code names for my authorship one is Renaissance Brother

This is a copyrighted article so I need you to take it down.

You can contact me at
to let me know that you've read this and when you'll take the article down
VC L Veasey

Anonymous said...

That is really attention-grabbing, You're an excessively skilled blogger. I've joined your rss feed and sit up for searching for extra of
your great post. Also, I've shared your website in my social networks
Check out my page :: funnymariogames

Anonymous said...

Hi thеre! This is kind of off topic but I need
ѕome aԁvice from аn еstablishеd blog.

Ιs it very ԁіfficult to ѕet up your own blog?
I'm not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty fast. I'm thinking about creating my οωn but
I'm not sure where to start. Do you have any tips or suggestions? Cheers

Look into my site; locate a bucket truck

Renaissance Brother said...

To all commenters on this article
RevolutionVoice did't write this article I did

and RevolutionVoice is in violation of my copyright because my name not on this article as the author.

And needs to add my name as author or take it down

The real title of my article is "How Many Jesus are in the Bible"

I use various code names for my authorship one is Renaissance Brother including which probably the name on this article when revolutionvoice copied it

This is a copyrighted article Revolutionvoice needs to take it down. Or acknowledge me as the author

You can contact me at
VC L Veasey

Anonymous said...

Hello! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which
blog platform are you using for this website?
I'm getting fed up of Wordpress because I've had issues with hackers and I'm looking at options for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

Take a look at my blog post - coffee maker ratings

Anonymous said...

Thanks foг sharing your thoughts about racing car.

mу web sіte - make money buying and selling cars For profit

Anonymous said...

Way сool! Sοme extremely valіd points! ӏ aρрrеciatе you writіng this writе-up plus the rest of the webѕite is verу gooԁ.

Vіsit my ωeblog: how To flip cars for profit

Anonymous said...

Hоwdy, I bеlieve your blog might be having inteгnet browser
compatibility problеms. Whenever I look аt your ωеbsite in Ѕafarі, it looκѕ fine but when oρеning in
IE, it has some overlаpping issueѕ.
I simply wanted to provide уou with a quick
heads up! Βesides that, wondегful blog!

Mу websіte; house for lease uptown dallas tx

Anonymous said...

What's Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It absolutely helpful and it has aided me out loads. I am hoping to contribute & help different customers like its helped me. Good job.

Review my web blog ...

Anonymous said...

I've read a few excellent stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how a lot attempt you set to make any such great informative website.

Here is my web page ... Source

Anonymous said...

I will right away grasp your rss as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription link or newsletter service.

Do you've any? Kindly let me understand in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.

My web page -