[Updated: 2023.10.28] 
 |
Onomastics of the name |
 |
 Sample of 45 leaves that accreted to the developing "Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)" Greek in late 2nd-3rd century C.E. (P-45 also included 66 leaves of Greek LXX.) |
| Tracking Forward ⇒ From Av•rã•hãmꞋ | 135 CE | ⇐ Tracking Back From Today |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-Hellenist, PRO-תּוֹרָה- | Poof! | Antinomian, misojudaic, PRO-Hellenist Roman גּוֹיִם Χριστιανοι, followers of the Hellenized-syncretism |
Until I shattered the illusion in the early 1970s, scholars universally assumed Christianity traces back to 1st century Judaism (unconcerned how pro-Tor•ãhꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ Jewish followers of a pro-Tor•ãhꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ
In fact, except for the post-60 CE (at least 30 years after the crucifixion of Riyb"y 
by the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ and Romans) original 7 churches in Turkey, where Christianity and "Christians" were first conceived by The Apostate Paul (not Riyby nor his Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ), no scholar has ever demonstrated Christianity before the death of the 15th Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ Pã•qidꞋ in the Great Roman Exiling of Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ and other Jews that began in 135 C.E.!!!
I based much of The Nᵊtzãrim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyãhu (NHM, in English) on the methodology of reversing the translation of 𝕸 Hebrew to LXX Greek; then using that mapping, supplemented by the ËvꞋën Bo•khanꞋ and all other earlier extant Hebrew sources, to map Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Greek to reconstruct the most accurate possible, restored Hebrew.
For quite a long time, this fooled me, just as it continues to fool many others, into accepting that the Hebrew name, יְהוֹשֻעַ, in the 𝕸 Hebrew equated to the LXX Greek Ἰησοῦς; and from there to Jesus in English.
But then I discovered the earliest extant (nearly complete) source!
"The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (β) and the Codex Sinaiticus (א), both dating from the 4th century [C.E.], and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts." (On-line Encyclopedia Britannica, Septuagint accessed 2012.04.23)
From my research in translating the entire Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) — from all of the earliest extant sources, I immediately recognized that these are the same, identical sources. The Greek LXX and the profoundly Hellenized-redacted Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) are from the same two earliest extant sources — א and β!!! They were bound in the same two codices! It was suddenly strikingly clear: the Christian redactors redacted both of these to corroborate each other and bound them in the same codices together, as one internally, circular, self-corroborating unit. What is Hellenized-redacted in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was similarly backward Hellenized-redacted into the only copies of LXX that the Church permitted to survive and be copied.
Consequently, it shouldn't be surprising that the name יְהוֹשֻעַ (Bin-Nun) was redacted in LXX and the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) differently — because the Church insisted that the name Jesus be distinguished and special — from any other name ending with ע in
In the English KJ/V (1611 C.E.), the identical name that is found in both the Hebrew Ἰησοῦς) was baselessly made different and entirely unique — Jesus — in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)!!!
Thus, the question must be asked, "Why was the name, יְהוֹשֻעַ (and its diminutive, YᵊshuꞋa), victim of this gentile retroactive redaction to make the Greek Ἰησοῦς?" The only name in Ta•na״khꞋ ending in ע to 'evolve' its 's' ending (Jesus)?
The same rule that transliterated other names ending in ע into Greek should have produced the Greek Ιοσου—not Ἰησοῦς, from which Jesus derives. The rule should have produced an "o" in the first syllable, not an "æ" and omitted the "s" ending of their native Zeus!
Still, why, in LXX, does the identical Greek name, Ἰησοῦς reach us as "Joshua," not Jesus???
Suddenly, it was no longer a great mystery why this one Greek name, unlike any other anywhere, was rendered differently from any other name in LXX as well as the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) (where the English was rendered from the transgarbled Latin "Iesus". Ἰη Zeus), from the original 𝕸 Hebrew יְהוֹשֻעַ. They were Hellenist-redacted exactly the same, by the same Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ and Hellenist Roman-Christian hands who, in 135 CE, had ousted the original Jewish followers of
Critics quote their own self-proclaimed knowledge or Wiki-whatever (which could be an 8th-grader somewhere). I only cite legitimate scholars and works recognized by reputable universities.
I'm no longer deceived by Christianity and the church. Are you?
"…
'Diwijos— an archaic form ofΖεύς. The nameΖεύςis cognate with the Greek wordΘέοςand LatinDeus(both meaning "god"). These three terms ultimately trace their etymology to an ancient Proto-Indo-European [PIE] male sky-god" [Yᵊdeiwós]" (vide TheGodsof Ancient Greece, Indo-European Poetry and Myth, also GreekGodsBefore Homer)
The Greek word for God / Deity, and so translated more than 1,000 times in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and LXX, is Θέος, translated into Latin as Deus.
Like every Hellenist, Homer and Herodotus equated Θέος with Ζεύς: "Θέος, … (also Θέος Ζεύς in Homer's Odyssea … Θέος, … ὁ θ., of natural phenomena, ὁ θ. υει ([scilicet] Ζεύς) (Herodotus Historiae]".
Until recently, even Google Translate translated Ἰη Ζεύς as "O Ζεύς" and "O Dios".
Greek name suffixes transliterated as -sus, -seus and -sous are phonetic pronunciations for the chief Greek god of Olympus—Ζεύς. These suffixes were appended by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as a means to honor their supreme deity, Ζεύς.
Ζεύς (et sim.) -related Hellenist-Christian beliefs, inherent in The Apostate Paul's original Hellenist-Christian Churches in Turkey, are clearly documented as persisting in Hellenist-Christianity (non-Judaic=paganism) from as early as the 5th–6th into the 14-15th century in the Christian "Ὑγρομαντεία of Solomon". (♃ ): the Greek phrase "… Ἰη' Ζεύς …" translates into English as "15th is Ζεύς" (hour…)—with Hellenist-Jewish/Roman-Christian mystic interpretations! This documentation is consistent with an uninterrupted Roman-centric Hellenist-Jewish belief system continued from the original Hellenist-Jewish/Roman-Christian Churches of The Apostate Paul in Turkey.
Perhaps this reference to a 15th Ζεύς was (successful in) intending to displace the 15th (and last, until 1974 CE) Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ Pã•qidꞋ (see link).
"From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek Θέος, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Ζεύς (gen. Dios), Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities." (Catholic Encyclopedia).
Deus is a cognate of Greek "*div- "to shine," thus cognate with Gk. dios "divine" and Ζεύς, and L. Deus "god" (O.Latin deivos); see Zeus" (deva).
"Dios — noun, masculine; genitive singular of Ζεύς — 'of Ζεύς' " (Univ. of Texas)
Thus, Hellenist Roman Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Θέος = Greek Hellenist Ζεύς = Roman Jupiter (see Acts 4.12-13), the Θέος native to Roman Hellenists (who, in 135 C.E., became the earliest and original Christians) and to which the Hellenist Roman Hellenists dedicated (יְרוּשָׁלַיִם ⇒) Aelia Capitolina.
Hellenist Roman gentiles were primed from birth with a headful of attributes associated with their primary Θέος, Ζεύς. When gentile Hellenist Romans were told by Hellenist Jews (a myriad of apostate min•imꞋ, probably many Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ who had formerly ruled the Temple before it was destroyed, and were now jobless) that "the real Ζεύς, instead of being born of RæꞋa and Kronus, was born of Mary and Θέος—it became a simple evolution of the name, among Hellenist Romans, for Ζεύς ⇒ xman-god Ἰη Ζεύς (Old English: Je Zeus) ⇒ Ἰησοῦς (= English Jesus, or perhaps better, jeZeus")—retaining all of the attributes that they had always associated with Ζεύς.
In other words, this was hardly more than a new name for the Ζεύς they had always worshiped. Even the face of Ζεύς was retained!
The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) explicitly syncretizes the worship of Ζεύς to their Hellenist (Χριστιανοι Church) ιε Ζεύς ⇒ Ἰησοῦς ⇒ Jzeus!!!
The two—historical Jew 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 absolute and resolute rejection of the antithetical opposite.
'Historical Jzeus' or 'Jzeus the 'Nazarene'—was, in reality, the Pᵊrush•iꞋ Tor•ãhꞋ teacher known among religious Jews of his era as
Even the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) acknowledges and documents that
After being misrepresented for millennia (since the 135 C.E. apostasy) as the anti-תּוֹרָה (Jzeus by Christianity & the Church, the authentic
That Jesus is Zeus is a matter of historical record. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the English "god" traces back through the Old Teutonic Tiu — surviving in Tuesday ⇒ Roman Jupiter ≡ Latin Deus ≡ Greek Θέος and finally (and probably shockingly) ⇒ Greek Ζεύς, for which the gen. form is Διος. But Christian theologians are careful not to show you the connections between the dots and, if pressed, insist such connections are invalid — and who are you, they pontificate, to argue with Christian "theologians"? With Christian "Dr. of Divinity" degrees? ("Dr. of Divinity" degrees? Really? Even if they attended a brick & mortar diploma factory, could they pass even a high school math or science test?).
Hellenist Roman Ζεύς, antipodal to what a religious Jew understood in Hebrew!
The Hellenist Jew, vacillating between the two communities, with only a superficial notion of each, muddled the two immiscibles — as they and Christians continue to do today.
Usage of the Greek and Latin terms by the earliest (gentile) Christians must be kept in mind. Thus, in the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (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 understood the Bible, "commandments" and "Temple" of the Jews only within their native Greek or Latin terms and their native, mythological, frame of reference — Θέος ≡ Ζεύς. This held true even in Hellenist 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 Ἰησοῦς (Iæsous); \'\'Resurrected Zeus\'\' = Latin Deus, Deos and Theos = English god — anglicized to Joshua in LXX and Jesus in the Christian \'\'New Testament\'\'.','#ffff99', 260)"; onMouseout="hideddrivetip()">Jesus (and, despite denials, that is ≡ Θέος ≡ Ζεύς). This is definitely not what an Orthodox Jew has in mind when (s)he thinks of
For example, unlike the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) text indisputably demonstrates that their original Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) read (and Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist-Christians understood and believed):
Mt. 1.23 "being interpreted is, 'Θέος ≡ Ζεύς with us'."
Mt. 4.3 – "If you are the son of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς…"
Mt. 5.9 – "they shall be called the children of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς"
Indeed, the entirety of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) accounts of Jesus—every reference to god, over 300 of them—revolve around Θέος ≡ Ζεύς.
We find (Acts 10.38) "how Θέος ≡ Ζεύς anointed Ἰησοῦς."
Interestingly, the Greek verb επιστρεφω can as easily mean "return toward" as "turn toward," which the KJ/V English equates to converting. Thus, Acts 15.19 speaks not of gentiles "turning to God" as understood by Jews, but, rather, when these gentiles were told by (obviously) Beit Θέος (God): " εθνος are (re)turned to Θέος ≡ Ζεύς."
"Speaking in tongues" is then revealed (Acts 2.11) as "the greatnesses of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς" and (Acts 10.46) "speak with tongues, and magnify Θέος ≡ Ζεύς."
As a Greek-speaking Hellenist, "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate and father of Christianity was acutely aware that the gentile Roman — Hellenist — public equated the Hellenist Θέος with Ζεύς — with Ἰησοῦς ≡ Jesus. It is clear from his own letters (which make up most of the "New Testament"), that Paul the Hellenist Apostate deceiver, doubtless with his own (Hellenist-perceived) good intentions of helping the gentiles, duplicitously blurred the difference to "market" his message among the freshly Temple-less Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Jews and Hellenist Roman (Ζεύς-worshiping) idolaters to "morph" Θέος ≡ Ζεύς ≡ ιε
Ζεύς ≡ Ἰησοῦς (English Jesus).
Rom. 1.1 – the gospel of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς
Rom. 1.4 – declared to be the Son of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς
Rom. 3.29 – Θέος ≡ Ζεύς is only of the Jews?
Rom. 4.3 – Abraham believed Θέος ≡ Ζεύς
Rom. 6.11 – alive unto Θέος ≡ Ζεύς through Ἰησοῦς ≡ Jesus
I Cor. 1.2 – unto the Church of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς
I Cor. 3.16 – you are the temple of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς and the spirit of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς dwells
I Cor. 11.3 – the head of Christ is Θέος ≡ Ζεύς
II Cor. 4.4 – Christ, who is the image of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς
II Cor. 6.16 – Paul the Apostate and father of Christianity asks, "how can you put an idol in the temple of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς? You are the temple of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς! (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, "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate and father of Christianity equates Ἰησοῦς ≡ Jesus to "the image of the invisible Θέος ≡ Ζεύς." who will (3.1) "sit on the right hand of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς." Describing Θέος ≡ Ζεύς as invisible does not equate, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, to
The equating of Θέος ≡ Ζεύς with Ἰησοῦς ≡ Jesus is also clear in Titus where (2.10) "Θέος ≡ Ζεύς (is) our Savior" which is identical (2.13) "our Savior Ἰησοῦς ≡ Jesus Christ."
Elementary logic dictates the intent:
Let a = Θέος ≡ Ζεύς
b = "our Savior", and
c = Ἰησοῦς ≡ Jesus
Proven logic: If a=b and b=c then a=c; and Christians worship Ζεύς!!! 
In every one of the more than 300 instances in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) alone where one finds the word "God" in KJ/V, the original text reads the blurring term "Θέος" ≡ Ζεύς.
"It could hardly have escaped the translators of the LXX, who did their (pre- Christian-redacted) work two centuries before note 1.21.1).
"The aorist active [masc. participle] of the Greek verb "to heal" is ίασούς, in which the temporal augment changes the initial vowels to ια… The most probable explanation for the anomalous Ἰησοῦς is a conflation between Ιοσου, which is generated by the usual rules of Greek, and the phrase ίασούς-Ζεύς, the most popular and powerful Hellenist god, finally yielding Ἰησοῦς ≡ Jesus." (NHM subnote 91 to note 1.21.1).
The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) goes even futher to avoid its connection to Ζεύς—and proving its Roman adaptation. Instead of transliterating the literal reading—Hellenist (Greek) Δια (accusative masc. sing. form of Ζεύς)—in Acts 14.12 & "priest of Διος" (gen. masc. sing. of Ζεύς) in v. 13, English translators avoided any connection to Ζεύς among non-Greek-speakers, by morphing it further, into the Roman Jupiter" as if there was no connection. Dot connections gone!!!
So why did this name—Ἰησοῦς ("Iæ•seus")—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 ע)—and so eerily reminiscent of morphing the Egyptian Goddess "Isis," which evolved into the most popular Greco-Roman God "Ζεύς" (≡ Jupiter) as a portmanteau: "Is•zeus" — nothing like
There is no rational, logical answer. (For documentation and further details see also Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN).
 |
| Tombstone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, apparently where he was last stationed in the Roman Legion, in Bad Kreuznach, Germany |
Admission in the accounts that gods mating with mortal virgins, the whole idea of a divine mating, as well as a resulting hybrid man-god, was entirely gentile —
In fact, the story of this Jewish couple is only one of many that, when translated from Aramaic and Hebrew — by Hellenists — into Greek, long after the fact (after 135 C.E. into the 4th century C.E.), Roman Hellenist Christians were clueless to Judaic aspects. Hence, many Judaic aspects never made it into, and, expectedly, we don't find them in, the Hellenist (Greek) texts, which are all that have come down to us.
Thus, Hellenist myth displaced the original Judaic description in the Greek Christian accounts that have reached the modern world. By the 4th century, through Hellenizing translation and Christian redactions, it is impossible to distinguish elements of Egyptian-Hellenist myth from an original Judaic account — except by differentiating between the exclusive traditions that differentiated Jews from ).
In the only account accepted by the 1st century . the essential facts are that (1.18): "
The Judaic perspective, רוּחַ הַקֹדֶשׁ, is one of sanctity and holiness of marriage — not an idolatrous marriage with a Hellenist god (Ζεύς) to produce a Hellenist man-god.
Pantera was, indeed, a documented name of more than one Roman soldier in the 1st century C.E. However, an asserted association with
The best argument for an association with
Panthera (the Greek pronunciation) forms a metathetical play on words with παρθένος, the Greek term translated "virgin" in the Hellenist (Christian) Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) — a distortion of עַלְמָה found in 1.22-23. (On the other hand, an עַלְמָה is expected to be a virgin — but only until she marries. Unlike the Hellenist theme of Ζεύς mating with a mortal woman to produce a man-god as described in the Hellenist Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), this is exactly the implication of 1.22-23.)
Prof. Tabor of the Univ. of North Carolina belittles the idea that this is a play on words (here, here and here); principally, it seems, because of the non sequitur that these two words are not linguistic cognates. However, the fact is that plays on words, often involving this kind of metathesis of letters, are widespread, popular and almost never linguistically related. That's what makes them a play on words as contrasted with some linguistic twist of cognates (e.g., to create two quick plays on words using cognates: If the driver drove the sheep, who shipped the sheep on the ship?). The documentation proving that Pantera was a real name of that time and era doesn't detract from the play on words in any way whatsoever.
Prof. Tabor also criticizes (ibid.) the idea of the association being a pun by asserting that there is no precedent for such a practice. On the contrary, the deliberate perversion of a word associated with idolatry to a nomen eradicum traces from present day practice (e.g., מֹלֶךְ, a nomen eradicum (or damnatio memoriae) for the Hebrew name or title, מֶלֶךְ, that had been afforded the idol by its worshipers, displacing the vowels with those of בֹּשֶׁת. Another example following the same tradition is עַשְׁתֹּרֶת, the nomen eradicum for Ishtar (Easter). In Greek, the nomen eradicum, or damnatio memoriae, tended toward a Greek-Hellenist adaptation fabricated by Celsus.
From there, the association, by this time linked solely to the post-135 C.E. Christian image Jesus, becomes echoed in the 5th century C.E. compilation of the
The Hellenist frame of reference of the Roman Zeus mating with a mortal woman to beget a hybrid man-god, Ἰησοῦς (Zeus-incarnate) — namely, Egyptian cum Hellenist mythology.
Accordingly, we would agree with Celsus that the "son of Panthera" is an appropriate nomen eradicum that should be substituted for the "son of a παρθένος"; i.e., the Pauline Christian idol, Ἰησοῦς, the son of Mary Mother of god (better, I should write "Morey") to distinguish the Roman Christian idols of Hellenist mythology from the historical Jewess,
It seems that Celsus may have been closer to the mark than even he realized!
Pay it forward (Quote & Cite):
| Yirmeyahu Ben-David. Sukkah08new (2023.10.28). Netzarim Jews Worldwide (Ra'anana, Israel). https://www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah08/Sukkah08new.htm (Retrieved: Month Da, 20##). |
 |
|
 |