(Hut, Booth or Exhibit #7)
2nd — 4th Centuries CE:
|
 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 |
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 Yehoshua (and its diminuitive, Yeshua), also a likely victim of gentile retroactive redaction to match the Greek I-ie-s-o-u-s) the only name in Tan"kh ending in ayin to 'evolve' its 's' ending (J*esus)? The same rule which produced other names ending in ayin should have produced the Greek Ιοσου (Iosou) — not Ι*ησους (I*eisous, from which J*esus derives (with an "o" — not a "ei" — in the first syllable, and minus the Z*eus-like "s" ending)!
That J*esus is Z*eus is indisputable. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the English "g*od" traces back through the Old Teutonic T*iu (surviving in T*uesday) → Roman J*upiter equivalent to Latin D*eus → Greek Θ*εος (Th*eos) and finally (and reluctantly) → Greek Ζ*ευς (Z*eus) (for which the gen. form is Δ*ιος (D*ios)). 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 their own frame of reference – Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus)), even in obvious Judaic settings. For example, unlike the Hebrew Bible, the Greek NT text indisputably demonstrates that Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist-Christians understood and believed:
Indeed, the entirety of the NT accounts of J*esus – every reference to g*od, over 300 of them – revolve around Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus)).
We find (Acts 10.38) "how Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus)) anointed Ι*ησους (I*eisous = J*esus)."
Interestingly, the Greek verb επιστρεφω (epistrefo) 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 (ethnos; peoples) are (re)turned to Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus))."
"Speaking in tongues" is then revealed (Acts 2.11) as "wonderful works of Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus))" and (Acts 10.46) "speak with tongues, and magnify Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus))."
As a Greek-speaking Hellenist, Paul the Apostate and father of Christianity was acutely aware that the gentile Roman public equated Θ*εος (Th*eos) with Ζ*ευς (Z*eus) – with Ι*ησους (I*eisous = J*esus). As Paul the Hellenist Apostate deceiver duplicitously blurred the difference to "market" his message among the Hellenist Roman idolaters and further his own fame:
In Col. 1.15, Paul the Apostate and father of Christianity equates Ι*ησους (I*eisous = J*esus) to "the image of the invisible Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus))." who will (3.1) "sit on the right hand of Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus))."
The equating of Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus)) with Ι*ησους (I*eisous = J*esus) is also clear in Titus where (2.10) "Θ*εος ((Th*eos = Ζ*ευς (Z*eus)) (is) our Savior" which is identical (2.13) "our Savior Ι*ησους (I*eisous = J*esus) Christ." Elementary logic dictates that 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 "G*od" in KJ/V, the original text reads the blurring phrase "Θ*εος ((Th*eos)" – which is equivalent to Ζ*ευς (Z*eus)).
"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 ιδεως was strikingly similar to ιασους (iasous), meaning 'to heal.'" (The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 1.21.1).
"The aorist active of the Greek verb to heal is ιασους (iasous), in which the temporal augment changes the initial vowels to ια (ia)… The most probable explanation for the anomalous I-ei-s-o-u-s is a conflation between Ιοσου (Iosou, which is generated by the usual rules of Greek) and the phrase ης Ζ-ε-υ-ς; he was Z-e-u-s), the most popular and powerful Roman g*od, also called J*upiter, yielding Ι-η-σ-ο-υ-ς (I-[ei-s]-o-u-s)." (The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) subnote 91 to note 1.21.1).
So why did this name — I*eisous — 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 ayin) — and so eerily reminiscent of morphing the Egyptian G*od-dess "I*sis" and the most popular Greek-Roman G*od "Z*eus" (=J*upiter)? (For documentation and further details see Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).
 |
|
 |