Skip to main content

Is There More Than One Jesus in the Bible?


How Many Jesus Are In The Bible?

Hi let me say up front, that this hub is not written to upset, anger, or step on anyone's cherished beliefs, who may take these stories as literally true. I'm just pointing out something that may be beneficial to their understanding of these stories, if they're open to it. And if they're not open to it...that's fine too.

I don't take these stories as literally true

Now that, that's out of the way, let's get started.

It may seem like an odd question to ask “is there more than one Jesus in the bible?” Especially since we’ve been taught that Jesus is unique and that his name is the only name we can be saved by. So let’s take a little walk through the biblical woods and see if we can separate the woods from the trees.

The Origin Of The Name Jesus

First, let’s take a look at the derivation of Jesus’ name. The English name, Jesus, is a translation or transliteration of the Latin name Iesus. Iesus is a translation of the Greek name, Iesous (pronounced I ee sus). Iesous is a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua or Yehoshua, or in English Joshua

You can find this information on your own; just do an internet search on the origin of the name Jesus.

With what we’ve just learned, I think it’s easy to see that Jesus’ name in English should be Joshua, I think that even a “blind man” could see that.

Now here’s the interesting question. Jesus’ real name is Yehoshua, so how can we only be saved by the name Jesus, since that’s not Jesus’ real name? Shouldn’t the only name we can be saved by be, Yehoshua, his real name?

If we wanted to substitute a name for Jesus’ real name, wouldn’t Joshua be the logical choice and make more sense, since that's his name in English? Joshua would be closer to Jesus’ real name, but that’s still not, his real name.

So why did Christian scholars, translate Yehoshua’s name as Jesus, rather than, Joshua as they did the name of Yehoshua the son of Nun, in the Old Testament, when they translated the Bible into English, in the seventeenth century AD? ( Joshua is the original Jesus in the bible).

We’ll take a look at that question in a second, but first, let’s take a look at how many people named, Jesus are in the bible, other than Jesus.

People named Jesus in the Bible

1) Jesus Barabbas, was the captive robber, whom the Jews begged Pilate to release, instead of Jesus after Jesus had been arrested.

2) Joshua, was the famous captain of the Israelites, and Moses' right hand man and successor (Ac. 7:45, Hebrew. 4:8).

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

4) Jesus surnamed, Justus, a Jewish Christian, associated with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Colossians. 4:11.) (Strong’s Bible Lexicon)

5.Jesus, "the Son of Sirach", the author of the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, who lived in the 3rd century BCE.(

Have you ever heard of these people? I hadn’t, until I did this research, the results of which I’m sharing with you now.

Scroll to Continue


Jesus Barabbas

We’ve all heard the story of, how following Jesus’ arrest, the people were asked choose, which one of two prisoners they would like to set free, Jesus or Barabbas, and that they chose to set Barabbas free. But what you probably didn’t ,know, is, that, Barabbas’s first name was….Jesus! Isn’t that amazing! You have to prisoners with same name! But it’s even more amazing then that. This is the meaning of Barabbas: “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 (Matthew. 27:16-26; Acts 3:14). This Pilate did” (Easton's Bible Dictionary).

So Barabbas means son of the father. Why did the author of Matthew, leave out Barabbas' first name in this story? I think his first name was it left out on purpose.

Jesus was called the “son of the father”, and Jesus Barabbas, was called the “son of the father” So there were two "Jesus' “sons of the father" on trial that day! So which one was the "real" Jesus?

Obviously the translators of the story, only wanted us to focus on the Jesus, they wanted us to focus on. They didn’t want us to see, that, there were two “Jesus' on trial in that day. So how can we sure, which one was the real Jesus? That’s a good question to ponder, don’t you agree? For more on this issue (See "The Mystery of Barabbas" 1993 Dr. M.D. Magee ).

Joshua the son of Nun

Let's move on, and take a look at the original Jesus of Bible, Joshua the Son of Nun. Many people, may never have been aware of this, because, when the Septuagint, the original Greek Old Testament, was translated from Hebrew Bible around 3 BC, (300 years before Jesus) Joshua's name, was transliterated as, Ieous (Jesus).

Here’s what Strong's Bible Lexicon says about Joshua the son of Nun "Joshua = Jehovah (Yahweh) is his help, or Jehovah the Savior or God in the flesh. The son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, the successor of Moses as the leader of Israel. He is called Jehoshua in Numbers. 13:16 (A.V.) and Jesus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews. 4:8 (R.V. Joshua)". "The meaning of Nun = "fish" or "posterity" father of Joshua the successor of Moses".

Isn’t it interesting, that the fish was also the symbol of, Jesus and the early Christians? So was Joshua the original Hebrew Messiah? I say yes! For a more thorough look at this subject See (“The Cult of Joshua, Christianity Revealed" by Dr. M D Magee ()

The Septuagint

Way before the New Testament was written; the early Jewish Christians’ Bible was “The Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible (the Old testament translated into Greek). In this Greek Bible, as was pointed out earlier, Yehoshua, Joshua’s Hebrew name, was transliterated as Iesous. This was the first time, the name that would eventually become, Jesus, became known to the early Greek speaking Christians. When they read the name, Iesous (Jesus), they knew that name was referring to, Joshua the son of Nun, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Ahmed Osman in his book, “Out of Egypt the roots of Christianity revealed”, states, “The name Jesus appeared for the first time in the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in Alexndria during the 3rd century BC. ‘Jesus’ then indicated the son of Nun, who succeeded Moses as the leader of the Israelites. Jesus is also the name given to Joshua the son of Nun in the works of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, both Jewish authors of the 1st century AD. When the Christian Gospels, which were also written in Greek, spoke of Jesus, it was clear to the reader then that this was the same person as the Israelite leader who succeeded Moses. The confusion only appeared from the 16th century onwards, when the Bible was translated into English. Only then the name ‘Joshua’ was given to the Old Testament character, while ‘Jesus’ was used for his New Testament appearance”. (Out of Egypt, the roots of Christianity revealed, Ahmed Osman, 1998 Random House.)

So I think that pretty much shows us that, Joshua the son of nun, was the first Jesus in Bible.

Adam the son of God

Let's, look at what the gospel of Luke, says about who the first 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". So Adam was the original Son of God, very interesting. But, in the Old Testament, Adam is depicted as anything but a Son of God. Adam is depicted as a creation of God. But in Luke, Adam is depicted as the original Son of God, thousands of years before Jesus was born!

But how can that be, when we read, “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”. Genesis 2:7. So obviously, the writer of Luke, wanted to make Jesus divine, by making him a descendant of Adam, the original son of god, even though Genesis states, Adam is a creation of god not a son of god.

There were many sons of god during that time, which is why, the early Roman Christian clergy, made Jesus the only begotten Son of God, to make him distinct from, and more legitimate than, other religions sons of god. But. all sons. are begotten by their fathers (Begotten is from Beget. “Beget meaning to procreate as the father: Sire: To produce as an effect or outgrowth” (Webster’ Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

Sons of God and Angels

Although Adam wasn’t God’s son, genesis does mention that god had sons. "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" .Genesis 6:4

So I think this is proof positive that, contrary to what we’ve been taught to believe…that god had other sons besides Jesus. And the Old Testament doesn’t mention Jesus, as a son of god and he definitely, not the only son of god.

Some us think that when genesis refers to sons of god that the sons are really angels. Here’s what angel means. “Angel 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 us may have been conditioned or brainwashed, I mean taught to believe.

King David

Jesus is said to be the son of god and the messiah because he’s a descendant of King David, because the messiah will be a descendent of King David. John 7:41 “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?”

So Matthew was written to show that Jesus is a descendant of King David. Matthew 1:1 “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”

But in Luke, Jesus implies he’s not descendant of King David, Luke 20:41 “And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s son? 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 20:43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?”

I think that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin. Jesus is not a descendant of King David and therefore can’t be the messiah.

John the Baptist

Here’s another contradiction that show that Jesus is not the messiah. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and witnesses miraculous phenomena that show him that Jesus is the son of God. John 1:32 “And John bore record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it stayed on him. 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, On whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. 1:34 And I saw, and bore record that this is the Son of God”.

But, later after he had been imprisoned, and heard about the miraculous things Jesus was doing. John sends his disciples to ask Jesus, is he the one to come or do they look for another: Matthew 11:2 “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 11:3 And said to him, Are you he that should come, or do we look for another?”

John baptizes Jesus, recognizes him as the Messiah, but now has to send his disciples, to ask if Jesus is the one to come, or do should they look for another? Something’s fishy in Boston, and it ain’t the fish. I’ll leave that one for you to ponder.

Jesus can’t do great works in his hometown

Another point,

Jesus can’t do great works in his hometown

If Jesus is the messiah and God in the flesh, why did people’s belief, have anything to do with his ability, to heal them or to do great works?

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 6:4 But Jesus, said to them, a prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them. 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.” If he’s God why couldn’t he do any great works in his supposed hometown?

His name shall be Emmanuel

The writer of Matthew tries to show that Jesus is the son of God or the Messiah by quoting a prophecy of the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament:

Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, you son of David, fear not to take to you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took to him his wife: 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”.

Now many of us may have read this story or heard about it, and think that this proves, that Jesus is the son of God or the Messiah. But, Isaiah’s prophecy says the child’s name shall be “Emmanuel” meaning “God with us”. But Joseph named his child “Jesus”. If Isaiah’s prophecy was about Joseph’s child, it didn’t come true because, Joseph named his child “Jesus” not “Emmanuel”. The angel of the Lord telling Joseph in a dream to name his son Jesus, contradicts what was said in Isaiah’s prophecy. So how can Isaiah’s prophecy be referring to Jesus?

The Original Messiah

The original Messiah was Joshua the son of Nun, the successor of Moses, who actually led the children of Israel into the Promised Land of Canaan. This makes Moses the forerunner of the Messiah. The fathers of early Roman Christian Orthodox Church adopted this pattern and applied to John the Baptist and Jesus, to legitimize their new religious cult, associating it with a more established religious tradition with a long textual history.

After that somewhat circuitous journey through our subject. Let's end by answer our starting question

Is There One Jesus In The Bible or More Than One?

Yes there is more than one Jesus in the Bible. Here's a reminder of who some of them are

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 (Acts 7:45, Hebrews 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 (Colossians 4:11). (Strong's Bible Lexicon)

5.Jesus "the Son of Sirach" ) the author of the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, who lived in the 3rd century BCE.(

Should we turn a “deaf” ear and a “blind” eye to obvious contradictions in our religious beliefs, without doing some sustained research, into the history of what we’ve been taught to believe, without question, about our religious beliefs?

No we shouldn't.

May the Light never cease to lighten your Minds!

If you enjoyed this hub please share it on Facebook and other social media. Big Thanks!

The Bible And The Family Who Wrote it!


Medan Amboka on July 23, 2020:

Exciting news and knowledge

Teresa Brickey on July 08, 2020:

Please repent, you are teaching false doctrine's,. The name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name yeshua or Joshua meaning the Lord saves or the Lord is salvation. the name Immanuel means god with us the prophecy turned out to be symbolic given us a clue before the time, that the coming Messiah as Savior would actually be called God with us, because Jesus was God in the flash in the form of Jesus Christ the son of God as Jesus said if you've seen the son you've seen the father and if you've seen the father you've seen the son, so you see Jesus was God with us.

Amuthuthamil on May 13, 2020:

Read Isaiah 53 th chapter.. It says everything about Jesus's crucification . Jesus resurrected again.

He died for our sins and risen again.

Won the death and he is coming back...

Did Joshua did thing for u??

Thomas P on August 10, 2019:

Man, I love reading stuff like this. I love how God lets us talk through all this. Praise Christ

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on May 23, 2019:

Bob Cob,

I am sure there were many false messiah's (Jesus is a pseudonym defined [b]I Am That I Am Saves[/b] like Joshua does) but I don't if they wore Joshua or not.

As for Joseph and Mary, they came as the years the cannoned Bible records no prophets prophesied which is why we call Joshua's arrival AD. However, if you look at the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-22 you will find the son of the virgin comes to bring Isaiah 2:2-4's world peace and the son of the Rev. 12's woman - which is not born of a girl gender but a boy, pre the Garden in Eden story, - the virgin's man-child and his mother are the same person and is he who sits in the USA's White [prison] House to bring the peace. Therefore, there has to be two Jesus' to accomplish the prophecies.

bob cob on May 23, 2019:

personally their may have been people claiming to be Jesus.

But if you believe Joseph is in the old testament

and also Mary then only one Jesus.

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on June 09, 2018:

What I didn't say, Medicine Man, is the Bible's Jesus is a pseudonym for two different people, the one who was diseased (preached) as a show white person (Exodus 4:6-8) and the latter messiah who will definitely be of color as was Moses, of mixed ethnics. The Matthew 17 "mountain of Transfiguration" reveals who they are.

The two different rocks Moses smote, the first he was told to and the later anger at (one when he comes) the people caused him to smite twice found in Leviticus.

Isaiah 11:1 has a Rod from the stem of Jesse and a Branch form his roots.

Isaiah 63:1-8 shows us how he will be dressed, barefooted and in a short garment like one pressing the wine fat.

Zechariah 14:4 say "his feet will stand on the Mount of Olive" means he is to be born is some place called Mount Olive.

Interpreting Genesis 49:1 & 8-12 we find the United States is "Judah of prophecy [see my hub "The USA In Bible Prophecy"], the young lion "Samson smote with nothing in his hands" and Micah 5:2's "Bethlehem (= house of bread) Ephratah (= plentiful)" since the US once bragged of being "the land of plenty".

When you see Daniel 2:45's "feet of Iron and clay" and Revelation 17:15's "The waters which thou sawest" both being man of most ethnics, "which wasn't when the Bible's Jesus came," then we will know where the second messiah is to come from.


VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on April 27, 2018:

Elijah A Alexander Jr

You're welcome! I glad you appreciated it!

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on April 27, 2018:

Medicine Man,

Thank you ever so much for this. I must not have searched in the proper place since I had looked for the origin of the name Jesus and didn't find it. What I was printed in a local newspaper was two French words, Je (I) and Suis (am). I supposed the Nicene Council of the CE year 325 had united the two to form Jesus in my hub Why Its Written "in the Name 'Of' Jesus. Now I must go back and make the corrections.

I am very grateful for that information.

Matthew tipton on December 27, 2017:

The whole thing about Joshua is a good eye but the reason this theory wouldn't hold up is because Joshua (y'hoshua) was supposed to be a forshadowing of Jesus (yeshua) so it wouldn't be surprising that he would hold the same title. But one thing to remember, is that it's not yeshua's humanly title that separates him, it is his title as messiack in Hebrew or Christos in Greek that destinguishes him. Christians consider him this because he compleated every old testement prophecy of the Christos, which there is more than enough archeological evidence to support. A statistics teacher made an example of this and said the chances of this would be the same as if you had covered the state of Texas in nickels 3 inches high and walked out and picked up a specific nickel.

Over all good job with supporting evedince.

Peggy Holley on October 21, 2017:

The real Jesus was with God from the beginning of time. John chapter 1, he is the word that became flesh and walked among man. He came to earth as a baby, conceived by the HS and implanted in Mary, who God chose to b his Jewish mom. What did he do on earth? He healed the sick and raised the dead. I wasn't raised in a Christian home and I was beaten as a child. I was praying to God and Jesus appeared to me. What did I do? I ran. After this I begin to have dreams. Jesus came to me and baptistery me in water in one of my dreams and he told me that he loved me. I gave my heart to him as a child. As I got older I became sick and I was diagnosed with kidney failure. I was in the hospital and I ask God to let me live and he healed me. I was given medication and Jesus healed me. I am alive today because Jesus answered my prayer. I will die one day and I will see Jesus again in heaven. He must love me best because I know him in a personal way. He answers almost every prayer I pray, so she says no. I love him and I'm glad I know him. I feel sorry for ppl who beythey are just to smart to believe in a God that saves and heals. But it's true. I have a friend who was on drugs and Jesus set her free. She went to teen challenge in New York. God is real and after u die u will stNd b4 him. He will be your judge. Read the Bible and ask Jesus Chyto reveal himself to u.

alan wooley on June 18, 2017:

were in the new testment does it say the "other jesus" only mention one time, i cant find it.. can someone tell me were it is

Jerry Collins on November 23, 2016:

There are two men named Jesus. The first was a Judean and the second was a gentile Jew. The first was a Hebrew the second was a gentile. The first was of the seed of Adam the second was of the seed of Satan. The first came to redeem his family those of Adam the second was sent of his father the Devil to the evil and rejected gentiles. The first came with a family plan of redemption and the second came with a personal salvation. The first required nothing of those he redeemed the second required that they believe in him. The first was in the wilderness of Judaea when the second one arrived the next day. The first said not to go to Samaria and the second went to Samaria. The first did not say to those he was to redeem had to eat his flesh and drink his blood and become like the second one. The first one was baptized of the Holy Spirit. the second was never baptized of the Holy Spirit as he was a gentile Jew. The first came saying that there was only two kinds of seed and the second would take all who believed in him. The second one died on the day of Preparation on the 13th of the month the first died 24 hours later on the Lord's Passover. The first was in the grave for only 72 hours, the second was in the grave for 108 hours or 4 and half days. When the first one died at three in the afternoon the second one was rejected as being one unrighteous gentile Jew. When the first one died there was an earthquake and a resurrection of the living ones being righteous and the second was not righteous and he was rejected for the second time. When the first one was aroused and made to stand up by his father an angel came from heaven and rolled the stone away from the grave, when the second one was raised there is no record of an angel coming from heaven. The first one was recognized after he arose, the second one was not recognized and he had to reveal himself. The first had no hole in is side and the second one had a hole in his side. The first one said that there was a place prepared for those of Adam the second said he was going to prepare a place. The first told those of Adam that the were to go to those of Adam and the second went away in a cloud.

The first was the son of Adam the son of God. the second was of the seed of Satan as the son of the Devil. The first said he was the Lord God the second was not the son of God but of the Devil. The first was tested to see if he was the real son of God, the second was never tested to see if he was the son of the Devil.

The first was Ani the Lord God of Israel while the second was one of the children of the Serpent from the beginning.

Lest you think that this wrong take the book of Matthew and treat it as one book and compare it to the book of John and you will see that Jesus the one from Nazareth was nothing more than a mythological creation of the gentile Jews who are not of the seed of Abraham or the seed of Adam.

Jerry Collins

Michael on July 19, 2016:

I think there is little cofussion on the seccssion "the true Messiah" if he is Joshua is he born of a virgin and secondly when they prophecy was announced by Isaiah Joshua had completed the task of taken the Isealites to the promised land. So what your stake on this?

jack on June 20, 2016:

Jesus said at the cross"Father forgive them for they know not what they do". May He also forgive all who do not know what they say! if any of you would take the time to read (in context) the scripture you are all discussing, you would find that you cannot interpret scripture or twist it to make your "opinion" truth. the bible even states that plainly. being a Christian for some 16 years now, and hour upon hour of study (not because i thought i "had" to, but because i loved it and because i was driven by the Holy Spirit in me.) a thirst obviously none of you are aware of. i accepted Christ and i not only believe Who He says He is, but that He is as real and alive as any one of us. i have had impossible prayers answered and so much more............. not by coincidence, but real fact based truths. i am so sorry for you folks who would through what you call intelligence and human understanding derived the "fact" all be it fiction, that Jesus was and is not Messiah. i pray that one day you would prayerfully ask Him not just to forgive you, but ask Him into your life, because you see Jesus Himself also said that it will be forgive any one who blasphemes the name of the Son of God, but to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, that sin will NEVER be forgiven. not in that age or the age to come. in other words, (and this is the true meaning of those words) if you call the Holy Spirit a liar then you will commit the unpardonable sin and never be forgiven. what He meant by that was the Holy Spirit gives utterance to all about Jesus being Who He is and what He did. and if you do not believe the Holy Spirit, then you will be forever damned. please, please, please reconsider these words and pray on it and ask God for guidance, forgiveness, and direction to the only true Messiah. Jesus Christ, in Whom God states in the bible more than once, "in Whom He is well pleased. your eternal destiny depends on it. Father, i pray for those who do not believe, that you Spirit would convict each of us of our sin and need for your Son. your free gift to man, that You and He paid in His own blood and torture. God bless you all...................................

jonnycomelately on February 26, 2016:

I am not a scholar; neither have I ever read the bible from front to back; nor do I know any Hebrew, or Greek, or any other language; and I am not now of the christian faith, or any other faith for that matter.

I see any statement of belief or faith as simply something to boost confidence in the mind that makes the statement.

If one million individuals, of any culture or language you like to think of, tell us about their perception of a Jesus, each one will be different. In other words, each perception is a product of the imagination.

And that imagination is what the individual finds attractive, for whatever reason. It might be an old man with a beard and kindly face. It might be a young man, with or without a beard, but with a nice sexy looking body, hanging up almost naked on a cross. It might show his face smiling down at the onlooker. Or fallen across his shoulder in agony and despair, about to die from his injuries. Whatever, that picture will satisfy the yearnings of the believer.

You can see from this Hub that everything to do with this religion, from right back in ancient times through to this modern day, is built up to serve a psychological purpose. So, you can believe whatever you like, it can never be proven in reality. It can all be taken with a grain of salt --- or it can be taken at face value and adopted in the way that you choose.

And arguing the details is utterly pointless and a waste of time.

Ananda Ji on December 23, 2015:

Yep, story telling that many exploit for social/political agendas that need historical support all the while ignoring the mushroom in the

Kristina Kaine on November 01, 2015:

There were two Jesus's, and with good reason. I write about this in my series Who is Jesus : What is Christ? See Amazon.

OnlybyChristjohn146 on July 12, 2015:

Always a telling sign when a journalist (author, blogger, novelist what have you) makes a comment - "...take a look at that question in a second, but first..." and then fails to return to actually make the 'point'.

Also telling is the confusing way of claiming that Luke 3:38 is somehow being deceptive. - "...obviously, the writer of Luke, wanted to make Jesus divine, by making him a descendant of Adam..."  one cannot help but wonder now at this point if said blogger has ever actually read a Bible, or simply been spoon fed horse manure by folk with a satanic axe to grind?

Additionally, the gross 'quote mining' of Mark 6:3 - 6, is sadly very disingenuous.

The assertion that the English name did not appear until the 16th century is patently false.  The first English Bible dates to the late 14th century.

Finally the above factual errors, text lacking context, and empty promises, coupled with basic grammatical points (which  admittedly do not in and of themselves render the author's writing 'dead in the water', but they also do not do much to bolster his (her) credibility either), render this whole piece to one of, at best, poorly written fantasy.

Quoting - "So why did Christian scholars, translate Yehoshua’s name as Jesus, rather than, Joshua as they did the name of Yehoshua the son of Nun, in the Old Testament, when they translated the Bible into English, in the seventeenth century AD? ( Joshua is the original Jesus in the bible).

We’ll take a look at that question in a second, but first, let’s take a look at how many people named, Jesus are in the bible, other than Jesus." - End Quote

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on September 16, 2014:


I don't believe any of these stories are true and I don't believe in Satan. So I don't think that it's I who's making the wrong ASSumption.


we're on the same page. That's what this hub is doing. Helping those who are open to it, to have the truth about this stories revealed to them

goodwill on September 15, 2014:

my research wants to do away with literal-ism [literalness], of which we hear too much from lay preachers to high priests of the christian faith. I think it is high time that all truth replaced all myth: e.g. the church orthodox still preaches about the genesis myth on the one hand; while on the other hand the same has forgiven- somewhat silently; and after centuries- Galelio Galilei and others for their sin- scientific truth.

I think that our only saviour is revelation of truth

jeff on August 15, 2014:

Your entire commentary rests on the ASSumption that the deity in the OT is actually GOD. The jewish encyclopedia, volume 8, page 653, published by Funk and Wagnall and written by over 400 of the worlds most respected and known rebbi would show you to be incorrect. It states that yhwh/jehova/yahu is the adversary also known as SATAN who the tribes of israel (including judah) made human sacrifice too. Throw your commentary in the wastebin where it belongs satan worshippers. Thank you.

Elderyoungman from Worldwide on December 30, 2013:

So you know that the son of zeus is not Yahoshua. Zeus is a "Pagan" deity, tracing back to Samyaza of the grigori. You should not confuse the two in front of the weak minded.

You're welcomed.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on December 28, 2013:

I guess We'll have to agree to disagree

you mentioned Zeus. I will agree that Jesus was a sun god, that's why his birthday is celebrated during the winter solstice, the ancient celebration of the rebirth of sun-god, Sol Invictus, the invincible sun.

Thanks for commenting

Elderyoungman from Worldwide on December 27, 2013:

I read the piece and what you need to see even in the example that you've provided is that Strongs #2424 Iesous is from the "Greek" Lexicon, not the Hebrew Lexicon. I will say this again, the "Greeks" had to MAKE themselves relevant to the holy scriptures. Now, why would I have issue with the greek lexicon? Because, the original scriptures were written in Hebrew. In Revelation, when the angel descended and opened the pit, the meanings of the same words (abado and abaddon) have opposite meanings (Destruction and Destroyer). You "Have" to deal in the Hebrew definition in order to find the truth. If you want to get an idea of what Greek/Hebrew relations looked like, you should read the first book of Maccabees from the Apocrypha. Then, you'll have the understanding you need to evaluate the deeper meaning of trying to use a greek derivative word to identify our MessiYah. Elderyoungman.

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on December 27, 2013:

Your research may have to go a little deeper as well

Elderyoungman from Worldwide on December 27, 2013:

The research might have to go a little deeper than

VC L Veasey (author) from Detroit,MI on December 27, 2013:

Jesus: origin 1200–50; Middle English Late Latin Iēsus, Greek Iēsoûs, Hebrew Yēshūaʿ, syncopated variant of Yəhōshūaʿ God is help; in Early Modern English, the distinction (lost in Middle English ) between Jesus (nominative) and Jesu (oblique, especially vocative; see Jesu) was revived on the model of Latin and Gk sources; Jesus gradually supplanted the older form in both nominative and oblique. (

Elderyoungman from Worldwide on December 27, 2013:

This is an interesting piece. I think the multitudes of people are simply not mentally strong enough to deal with the obvious conclusion. We were given "Jesus" by the romans. Iesus or Iesoos (Hey-Zoos) is "Not" the MessiYah, Yahoshua. In any other arena outside of religion, if you change the look of a thing and then a name of a thing, it is no longer the original. Pagans have controlled "Religion" since the tower of babel. The romans "Gave" us Jesus and all of the flavors of "Christianity" that you see in the world now. "Iesous is a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua or Yehoshua, or in English Joshua" That is not even remotely accurate. Iesous means Ie-Hail joined to sous-zeus. The romans did what people with no relevance to something they wish to assimilate do. The change it to look and sound like them and then destroy the original (same theme as The Terminator, the borg from star trek, etc, etc). This pattern was taught to them by the fallen angels, that have done the same thing. The name "Jesus or Je-Zues" is a lie, give to the masses by the devil. The first thing that those that will be saved "Must" do is to stop referring to the Son of the Most High by the name of the sun god, derived from Nimrod. Once "Zeus" is out of the conversation, then it would be appropriate to have a discussion about the Son of YHWH, Most High. Elder.

Related Articles