Post by bradwatsonmiami on Mar 11, 2012 14:21:27 GMT
Of course, "Jesus Christ" was not the Messiah's real name. Everyone knew that, right?! His name in Aramaic/Hebrew would be best translated to English as Y'shua bar Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph). In Greek it's translated to Joshua or Iesous. In Latin it was IESVS.
The Gospel according to St. John tells us that on the Cross were the names Y'shua, Joshua/Iesous, and IESVS. Now consider that using the most basic alphanumeric code or Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74) with the key(74) of A=1 - Z=26, we have...
Practicing Jews write 'G-d' because it's disrespectful to put God on paper or digital record. And if 'God' is written, then that paper/digital record is now considered sacred. The hidden (occult) reason is G-d=7_4. 7/4=July 4th or 7 April which in 30 A.D. was a Friday and the first full-day of Passover. 7/4/783 Roman Calendar (April 7, 30 AD) was the day that Jesus was crucified. He was born on 17/4/748 AUC or April 17, 6 BC.
Post by bradwatsonmiami on Mar 27, 2012 0:39:07 GMT
The mythical Jesus was not Joseph’s son. The historic Y'shua was son of Yosef. The mythical Joseph married Mary who was already pregnant. The historical Yosef married Mary and then impregnated her. It was Paul who made up this myth having taken it from other religions.
It is correct that "People back in the day did not let you ever forget your parentage". That's why everyone was known as "son/daughter of (father)", it was NEVER "son of (mother)". Ask a Rabbi what the practice was back then.
When someone was a visitor, then they would have been known as "Y'shua of Galilee". "Jesus of Nazareth is INCORRECT! Achaeologists are in agreement that the town of Nazareth didn't appear until after Jesus' death. Jesus the Nazarene is correct. The Nazarenes were a sect like the Essenes and were probably aligned with the Zealots as being anti-Roman. This is why "Jesus the Nazarene King Of the Jews would be placed above Jesus on the Cross by the Roman authorities.
"In the Bible, Jesus is referred to as Mary’s son". No shit?! The Bible has a few mistakes and let's keep-in-mind that Saul/Paul created a new religion by combining Messianic-Judaism with Mthraism, Zoroasterism, Egyptian, and other pagan practices.
My analysis is well researched and correct, while your analysis is neither.