-5

I read this article entitled: Jesus H. Christ = Hesus Horus Krishna.

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

Is there any historical basis for this claim at all?

  • 6
    The first obvious thing to me is that Krishna comes from a Sanskrit word for "dark", where Christ comes from a Greek word for "anointed" and so has no apparent relation. There's no evidence I'm aware of listing Hesus as the name of a Druidic God. And the names Jesus and Christ were in use well before Nicaea. – Matt Gutting Jun 27 '15 at 16:23
  • 6
    I've read Eusebius' Historia Ecclesia and I know that the reference to it is bunk. Made up by the article's author. No such council is referenced by Eusebius. So I bet the other references are similarly spurious. – Mr. Bultitude Jun 28 '15 at 0:06
  • 4
    When the letter J evolved, it evolved from I, not H. The original (Greek) spelling of Jesus is Ἰησοῦς (usually transliterated Iesous, pronounced "eeasoos"). The claim appears to be trying to operate on the Spanish pronunciation of Jesus ("heysoos"), but the H in Spanish doesn't make that sound - leading H's are usually silent. – Clockwork-Muse Jun 28 '15 at 9:48
  • 1
    "A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618)" ??? That would make him about 1300 years old. This totally fails the smell test. -1 – disciple Jun 28 '15 at 13:34
  • @disciple you could argue that the edition, not the Acts, is from 1618. – Matt Gutting Jun 28 '15 at 18:25
8

Lactantius, in his Divine Institutes, refers to a god named Hesus:

The Gauls used to appease Hesus and Teutas with human blood.

(Chapter XXI)

In addition, Wikipedia has an article on a god named Esus or Hesus which appears to fit the bill. But the name does not appear anywhere in Eusebius; neither do Krishna, Mithra, Zeus, or Horus. Thus, the quote referred to in the extract you give is spurious.

In addition, if addition were necessary, the names "Iesous" and "Khristos" (the Greek originals of "Jesus" and "Christ") were in use long before the time of Constantine. Papyrus 4, containing sections of the Gospel of Luke, dates to approximately the late 2nd–early 3rd century (that is, between 175 and 225 AD), and includes among other sections Luke's genealogy of Jesus (which begins with his name); similarly, Papyrus 45, dated to the mid-3rd century (about 250 AD), contains Mark's narration of Peter's declaration "You are the Christ". Both of these significantly predate any council that might have possibly taken place under Constantine (who was born in 272 AD).

There is, therefore, no reason to believe that the name "Jesus Christ" originated from a divinity named "Hesus Krishna", nor any reason to believe that such a "divinity" was ever constructed.

5

There is so much stupidity in this article I don't know where to even start (I would just trash the whole thing).

Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects.

That alone should be enough to ignore this entire article. Nicea was set up in order to resolve the Arian crisis, not to invent Jesus.

We know that orthodox Christianity existed long before Nicea. The New Testement was all written before Nicea. The Early Fathers also mention him (the fact that I have to bring this up saddens me: the Age of Reason is long over). St. Ignatius (AD 100-117) calls Jesus Christ God straight out with no mercy.

Also, I doubt anyone at Nicea, including Constantine, knew who Kristna even was.

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them.

Constantine had Arian leanings, and his sons actually persecuted the orthodox in favor of the Arians. If Constantine was really in charge, Nicean would have been much less clear in its cannons at the very least.

To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus

First of all, the concept of "British" wouldn't exist for at least another millennium, although, Charitably, he probably meant "Britianic." Not only is Jesus just the Greek translation of the Hebrew name "Yahweh saves" (meaningful name much?), but why would Constantine and the Greek priests in the "civilized, educated" Greek cities care about the "backward and odd" Barbarian gods of a backwater colony at the edge of the empire?

and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

There is an infinite difference between "god" and "God." Does this person even understand the Jewish or Christian or Muslim religions?

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God.

He might have the numbers right here: only like 5 Bishops supported Arianism. In actuality, the debate was not so much on Arianism (most of the Bishops rejected that nonsense), but on how to define the orthodox beliefs. Like, some Bishops seemed to be concerned that some expressions of the Trinity could be misinterpreted as modalism, and so on. Eventually, they decided that "Christ is "homoousian" or "consubstantial" with the Father" is the best expression of the faith.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines

That sounds so Scientificiallistic! It just must be true!

I found that much of what he writes isn't actaully his either, it seems: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

And on that website, that author cites occult trash like the Oahspe.

Now, stop searching for such conspiracy theories! This essay is the equivalent intellectually of a 9/11 truther.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

1

No, there is no historical basis. "Jesus" comes from the Hebrew, and "Christ" come from the Greek.

-3

The answer is, yes. Hesus is where we get Jesus from, though there is a bit more to it. When different languages come together, we get translations, transliterations and equivalent usages, when Hesus was introduced to the British Isles and the language of the Britons, it became Gesus. When the Bible and Christianity came along and the name Iesos (Ieso(s), a Greek Goddess of Healing.. you add the 's' on the end if you want to name your son after her) was being used, after they stopped using the Nomina Sacra to represent him. There was no name we had no translation or equivalent for him here in the British Isles, so the closest sounding name available was chosen, which was Gesus, aka the Horned God. Subsequently, they used the Horned God's appearance for that of Devil, in an effort to dissociate the name Gesus with the Pagan god. The English spelling of Gesus was used up until King James came along and began changing many names to begin with the letter 'J'.

To point out a small fact about the word Kristos, it actually comes from another Greek word, I forget the spelling, Creo, or something along that sound, which has several meanings, one, to paint/whitewash, 2nd, to prick someone, 3rd, to take drugs or drug someone, lastly, to stroke yourself (you should get what the last one means without an explanation, but just in case, it is a sexual act)!

  • Sources would improve this answer. Also, you haven't addressed the portion of the question that asks about "Krishna." – Mr. Bultitude Nov 2 '15 at 16:29
  • 3
    The question is about whether the idea of person of Jesus derives from the idea of the persons of "Hesus" and "Krishna", not about how the word Jesus came to English. Your answer is also factually inaccurate. The English J derives from the letter I, not the letter H or the letter G. And you are way way off base on the meaning of Χριστός (Christos) in Greek. – ThaddeusB Nov 2 '15 at 17:30
  • 2
    "The letter 'J' originated as a swash letter i, used for the letter 'i' at the end of Roman numerals when following another 'i' ... Originally, 'I' and 'J' were different shapes for the same letter, both equally representing /i/, /iː/, and /j/; but Romance languages developed new sounds (from former /j/ and /ɡ/) that came to be represented as 'I' and 'J'; therefore, English J, acquired from the French J, has a sound value quite different from /j/" - Wikipedia – ThaddeusB Nov 2 '15 at 17:34

protected by Nathaniel is protesting Feb 16 '17 at 20:32

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.