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.(Dictionary.com)

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.


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.(Dictionary.com)

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!

More by this Author


15 comments

ElderYoungMan profile image

ElderYoungMan 2 years ago from Worldwide

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.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 2 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

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. (Dictionary.com)


ElderYoungMan profile image

ElderYoungMan 2 years ago from Worldwide

The research might have to go a little deeper than Dictionary.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ysBp56tms&list=PL...


vveasey profile image

vveasey 2 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Your research may have to go a little deeper as well

http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua....


ElderYoungMan profile image

ElderYoungMan 2 years ago from Worldwide

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.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 2 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

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 profile image

ElderYoungMan 2 years ago from Worldwide

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.


jeff 2 years ago

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.


goodwill 2 years ago

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


vveasey profile image

vveasey 2 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

jeff

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.

goodwill

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


OnlybyChristjohn146 14 months ago

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


Kristina Kaine 11 months ago

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


Ananda Ji 9 months ago

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noLvktyLtJQ


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 7 months ago from Tasmania

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.


jack 3 months ago

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...................................

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working