The two beasts of the Apocalypse [short version]

Main thesis ==> Jesus was the true Caesar, the grandson of Heli (alt. Eli) Ha-Caesar (that's Julius Caesar in Hebrew) and the only son of the only true son of Caesar, who lived in hiding in Judean exile, and used the traditional name of the Hebrew Prince of Egypt (representing his last legal royal title), Joseph AKA Caesarion. The young boy Caesarion survived, his body was never found when his parents, Julius and Cleopatra, fell victim of treason leaving the young lad's mighty parents killed and dead. He was reported dead, but there exists no viable proof of his death, back when he was still the Prince of Egypt.

Jesus was thus the sole heir to everything imperial, the crowns of everything Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Hebrew-- and the only true Caesar. Jesus actually campaigned for the throne of the Roman Empire just before Passover 36AD when Tiberius were rumoured to have perished. However, Tiberius still lived, and Jesus received the death penalty for high-treason, dispite Pilate's objections-- and ended up having to survive being tortured and nailed to a tree, before he fled Northward after his recovery, towards Heavens, that is Northwards to any mariner or navigator. Towards the North Star at the very apex of Heaven where he established European royalty to complete his main royal mitzva, to rise to the throne and receive his kingdom and people from God above, until the day came and the Angel of Death knocked on his door i.e. «Jesus lives» as in «The king is dead! Long live the king!»

In short: Jesus should have sat and reigned on the Roman Imperial throne instead of Caligula and successors, following Tiberius' death, since Jesus was the only living true heir to Julius Caesar. That makes all the other Caesars and Augusti into frauds and rivals of Jesus and the true Caesari. And when all the fraudulent Roman emperors' reign ended with the Fall of the Roman Empire, the Pope took over the Roman Curia, where he still reigns as something more than both man, kings and emperors alike.

This is what John of Patmos revealed to us in a parables as two beasts in the 13th chapter of his Apocalypse:

==> 1st beast («the kings»): All the illegitimate emperors of Rome. From the conspiracy against Julius Caesar in 44BC until the Roman Empire ended into utter ruins after a few centuries and the Eastern sideshow kept kicking for quite a while longer.
==> 2nd beast («The false prophet»): The Pope. All Popes who have ruled the Roman Curia from the fall of the Empire until this day and tomorrow.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

In short: Jesus should have sat and reigned on the Roman Imperial throne instead of Caligula and successors, following Tiberius' death, since Jesus was the only living true heir to Julius Caesar. That makes all the other Caesars and Augusti into frauds and rivals of Jesus and the true Caesari. And when all the fraudulent Roman emperors' reign ended with the Fall of the Roman Empire, the Pope took over the Roman Curia, where he still reigns as something more than both man, kings and emperors alike.

I don't see the connection between Jesus and anything roman...

Especially Cesar's

Its pretty tough to establish a connection between them unless one believes in the "roman solder" theory... because there isn't a male geneology...

This is what John of Patmos revealed to us in a parables as two beasts in the 13th chapter of his Apocalypse:

==> 1st beast («the kings»): All the illegitimate emperors of Rome. From the conspiracy against Julius Caesar in 44BC until the Roman Empire ended into utter ruins after a few centuries and the Eastern sideshow kept kicking for quite a while longer.
==> 2nd beast («The false prophet»): The Pope. All Popes who have ruled the Roman Curia from the fall of the Empire until this day and tomorrow.

Wouldn't worry too much about revelation...

ye know, just for tips...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't think so.

The early and medieval Christians would have eaten up such stories, using them as defense against persecution, and we'd all know, if it were true.

It would also have made a nonsense of Jesus actual mission here on Earth, according to the Gospel accounts.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't see the connection between Jesus and anything roman...

When Jesus receives a coin and tells the Herodians to give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar-- Jesus kept the coin and walked away. Heli and Julius is the same name only in two different languages. The likely story here of a surviving Caesarion is a textbook display of the stories of Moses and Joseph and the underlying epos tying the entire Torah together. And who was the lord of kings like David in the days of Jesus? The ruling emperor carrying among plenty more titles, King of the Jews, or lit. REX IVDAEORVM the exact title written on the plaque above the head of Jesus on Golgotha. In the case of Jesus this emperor was of course the Roman Emperor, the concept of the king of kings in other words, used to describe the power of Jesus compared to the power of the messiah and other such mere kings. This is why Jesus refused and denied that he was merely the messiah i.e. the king of Judah-- he said, rhetorically, «how can the lord of David (i.e. the emperor) be a Bardavod (that is the family name given to Jesus meaning Son of David)?» Jesus, who was born out of wedlock was named after his mother who was named Miriam Batdavod, but his father and his father's father were the only two true Caesars ever to rule the Empire and Egypt. So how could Jesus Bardavod become Jesus Caesar? That's the riddle Jesus actually gives there, reciting the psalm of David, who was merely a petty messiah, not an emperor.

Jesus was most likely conceived by insemination (seriously) and was delivered by c-section like Julius Caesar himself, hence the word Caesarian section and the idea that Caesar was a son of the gods, esp. Mars and Jupiter, look what the Centurion says about Jesus when he says «his last words»-- certainly, this man was a son of the gods i.e. Caesar to any legionary. Thus, Mother Mary was still intact after the birth of Jesus and Joseph was not to blame, though he was the father genetically, the more than sixty years old Joseph claimed he had no sexual contact with the young Mary who was at the time in her early teens leading to the conception of Jesus, he wasn't even present when Mary got pregnant, but a messenger named Gabriel. His message was the Word of God, in this case the Y-chromosome of Julius Caesar and his only direct heir, Caesarion.

In the Apocalypse of Daniel, Gabriel ends his dialogue with the prophet showing the coming of the messenger Michael whom Gabriel explains as someone who walks on the water (sounds familiar?). Well. Use Albac cipher on Golgotha, you can see the angelic heritage of Jesus, his name is given as Jezaiel (var. of Isaiah, same name as Joshua and Jesus) Michel (var. of Michael) or in other words Jesus Michael. Angel Michael's weapon is a lance. Jesus was saved by being pierced by a soldier's lance.

The misunderstanding of the idea of virgin birth is that something miraculous happened leading up to the birth of Jesus. Miraculous to the meek perhaps, but a mystical sleight of hand procedure to a 1st century physician and what we would call gynaecology and insemination today. Physicians like say, the Roman doctors loyal to the true Caesar who was killed in 44BC, leaving his heir Caesarion to rule as Prince of Egypt until he was about 18 years, when his mother Cleopatra was also the victim of a conspiracy and were forced to kill herself. Caesarion, the Prince of Egypt had to flee and to live a life running from his parents' killers. He was reported captured and killed soon after Cleopatra's death, however, his body was never found, and there were about as many explanations of how he supposedly died and miraculously disappeared-- as there were wild beasts and gladiators in Circus Maximus.

Ask yourself: How old is the first Joseph described in the genealogy of Luke? Luke's Joseph was said to be in his sixties, fitting Caesarion spot on. This Joseph died when Jesus was still just a young lad. The second Joseph was a younger relative of the first Joseph, he was about Mother Mary's own age and married Mary due to Torah law, and was the father of James, Jesus' half brother. Look through the two different genealogies of Jesus (found in Matthew and Luke) and observe the intertwined noble, hey even royal descent of Jesus in two different, but direct lines back to king David. Long story short; there are two Josephs parenting Jesus, and they were both of noble and Davidic descent, like Mother Mary and most of the women surrounding Jesus and his pack of male disciples.

ETA: Another clear sign Jesus was in fact the true Caesar is the story about how Jesus orders a whole Legion to march into certain death. Who commanded the Roman legions? Oh, Caesar again.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't think so.

The early and medieval Christians would have eaten up such stories, using them as defense against persecution, and we'd all know, if it were true.

Claiming all emperors of the Roman Empire were imposters would give the Christians protection? Let me quote yourself here: «I don't think so.»

It would also have made a nonsense of Jesus actual mission here on Earth, according to the Gospel accounts.

And that actual mission was again? Oh, a political run: Matthew 28 (last verses of this gospel, verses 16-20): The Great Commission (ESV commentaries mine)

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (since Jesus was the only true heir to Julius Caesar, and very much persecuted one, from obvious reasons). Go therefore and make disciples (followers loyal to the true Caesar) of all nations, baptizing them (or lit. subdue them) in (or rather into) the name (legacy) of the Father (Jesus called God Eli [or rather Heli with silenced H in Greek] while nailed to the tree, that is Lat. Julius in Hebrew) and of the Son (Jesus' father, Julius Caesar's only direct heir, Caesarion) and of the Holy Spirit (or rather «according to the Command of God»), teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (that he only revealed to his twelve original apostles). And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Time goes by, and then comes Saulus, the first Pope (not Peter in other words, Peter was true to Jesus, but still a slave of Saulus), and the arch type of the pontiff. No other person has shaped Christendom more than Saulus. When you read the epistles of Saulus, put on the devil's glasses, for all he commands the (60AD +/- a year or two) churches to do and not do and what he tells them are threats and false theology effectively excluding these Christians from anything Jewish, like excluding them from synagogues for worshipping humans as gods and prohibit Christians from circumcising their sons etc), take this sentence from Sauli letter to the Philippians for instance (verse 4:22) :

All the saints greet you (the saints Saulus had killed or enslaved), especially those of (....you who belong to...) Caesar’s household (i.e. the descendants of Jesus).

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?"

Answer: Seventeen verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the “son of David.” But the question arises, how could Jesus be the son of David if David lived approximately 1,000 years before Jesus? The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Jesus is the promised Messiah, which means He had to be of the lineage of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. The genealogy in Luke 3 traces Jesus’ lineage through His mother, Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David by adoption through Joseph and by blood through Mary. “As to his earthly life [Christ Jesus] was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3).

Primarily, the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy. It is a Messianic title. When people referred to Jesus as the Son of David, they meant that He was the long-awaited Deliverer, the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

www.gotquestions.org...

www.blueletterbible.org...

Matthew 1:1 - The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Matthew 1:20 - But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Understanding Matthew 22:45...

how is he his son?
The question is to be answered upon true and just notions of the Messiah, but unanswerable upon the principles of the Pharisees; who expected the Messiah only as a mere man, that should be of the seed of David, and so his son; and should sit upon his throne, and be a prosperous and victorious prince, and deliver them out of the hands of their temporal enemies: they were able to make answer to the question, separately considered, as that he should be of the lineage and house of David; should lineally descend from him, be of his family, one of his offspring and posterity, and so be properly and naturally his son; but how he could be so, consistent with his being David's Lord, puzzled them. Had they understood and owned the proper divinity of the Messiah, they might have answered, that as he was God, he was David's Lord, his maker, and his king; and, as man, was David's son, and so both his root and offspring; and this our Lord meant to bring them to a confession of, or put them to confusion and silence, which was the consequence.

Jesus only quoted from Psalm to help them understand how he could possibly be the son of David (human Messiah) and the Son of God (divine Messiah conceived by the Holy Spirit and Lord of David) all at the same time.

Jesus did not pocket the coin of Caesar. He only told the people to abide by worldly laws as well as his commands that were totally unrelated to money. This is what he meant when he said, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jesus said to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because they all made up the divine Godhead.

John 1:1-2

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:14-15

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

1 John 5:7

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jesus said he was not of this world...

John 8:21-23

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 18:36

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

1 John 2:15-17

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

a reply to: Deetermined

No no no. The reason Jesus and his parents were called a Son or Daughter of David is that it was a Hebrew surname as in Eng. Davidson. In the time of Jesus it was given among others to unmarried mothers and kids born out of wedlock. While the priesthood condemned such people in the time of David, the king would likely speak their case and null the priests' condemnation and give them a new name as children of David, as a sign of the messiah's protection. The Torah also condemns divorce, but the House of David would provide laws and regulations making divorce possible under certain circumstances.

«Son of David» has never been a Hebrew royal title. See the story of Solomon the arch type of the Son of David, he had a 1000 lovers and wives and worshipped every god and goddess known to him. Still, despite of his obvious adulterous actions, both sexually and religiously, he was still unquestionably the Son of David, and remained seated upon the throne of his father as the messiah until the day he died.

Xians never understood what messiah means. It simply means king of the Hebrews, as in Saul, the first Messiah, and then David and the rest of them until the kings themselves, as well as the Assyrians and the Babylonians and the other empires put an end to the whole concept of the messiah. Jesus himself denies to be a messiah:

John [ESV] 6:14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” / 15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

Jesus wasn't a mere king, he was the rightful heir to the throne of the Roman Empire, being the king of kings i.e. the only legitimate emperor. Julius Caesar was butchered like a lamb by his closest and his own, and in his place they put traitors. Just like in the story of Jesus. Jesus was butchered while Saulus stole the show paving the way for the Roman papacy. Being the Lamb of God is synonymous with the arch type of The Good Emperor who rules the world with humble and good will, the Lamb who carries the weight of the world on his shoulders. Certainly, no Jewish messiah ever did this. None of them were ever in the position to do that. After all they merely controlled a nation the size of Scotland for heavens' sakes.

Revelation [ESV] 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.

a reply to: Deetermined

Baptism was a transitional rite especially popular among Roman legionaries and other people guilty of- or struggling with certain sins and actions, like soldiers driven by their conscience to admit or feel their kills as murder etc. John the Baptist would listen to their stories, make his respected judgement (well, obviously the Herodians were not fans of him). John would then escort the sinner into the water where he would hold the person under until the person potentially drowned.

When Jesus entered the water with John the Baptist, he was most likely doing so to pay his wages for his rumoured killing the son of Annas, the High Priest, while still a young boy (Annas later commanded the torture of Jesus prior to the crucifixion). John would likely have drowned him for this, since the principle in the Torah is an eye for an eye, and John the Baptist was reknowned for his righteousness, but while Jesus was struggling for his breath, a pigeon started messing about over them in the water, so John let go and Jesus survived, somehow understanding the pigeon as a sign of Jesus' innocence in the eyes of God; «children should not suffer for the sins of their fathers». Jesus was a mamzer until the day John the Baptist cleansed his sins, saved by the bell so to speak.

Another thing: Baptising children is equal with killing them in my opinion. The rite has been literally watered down to the extent that it has no longer any relevance or substance. Modern baptism is meaningless and to some of us, highly thought provoking and satanic in nature. There is no such thing as original sin. The concept was made up by the papacy to enslave the masses and force every soul into their rolls, complete with number and caste.

a reply to: Deetermined

Replace every instance of «world» (an unknown word in the time of Jesus) with the word LAND or NATION. Jesus said he was not of «this nation» i.e. he even refused being a Jew at certain points, he never denies being a Samaritan when he is accused of being one, and certainly not a mere messiah controlling only the Jewish nation, nor a mere man, but a Roman «son of the gods», that is, the Emperor, son of Jupiter and Mars, like his grandfather Julius (Heli in Hebrew). Had he been of «this land», that is «being the Jewish messiah», he would be in conflict with his real position as king of kings, he would be his own rival. You even post the texts showing Jesus repeating and clarifying this exact same dilemma. Jesus saw the messiah as a satan and got really pissed off when his disciples or anyone else called him the messiah or king, or like he said himself when his enemies accused him of healing people with the power of Satan:

«Matthew [ESV] 12:26...if Satan (or any king or powerful entity) casts out Satan (that is, himself, in this case Satan himself), he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?»

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't think so.

The early and medieval Christians would have eaten up such stories, using them as defense against persecution, and we'd all know, if it were true.

Claiming all emperors of the Roman Empire were imposters would give the Christians protection? Let me quote yourself here: «I don't think so.»

It would also have made a nonsense of Jesus actual mission here on Earth, according to the Gospel accounts.

And that actual mission was again? Oh, a political run: Matthew 28 (last verses of this gospel, verses 16-20): The Great Commission (ESV commentaries mine)

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (since Jesus was the only true heir to Julius Caesar, and very much persecuted one, from obvious reasons). Go therefore and make disciples (followers loyal to the true Caesar)

Were the Disciples driven by loyalty to the Roman empire, after Jesus died? No. Did Jesus form an army of followers and attempt to reclaim His Roman birth right? No.

of all nations, baptizing them (or lit. subdue them)

Baptism was ceremonial washing, not submission.

(or rather into) the name (legacy) of the Father (Jesus called God Eli [or rather Heli with silenced H in Greek]

Jesus called God 'father' in this passage which is 'Abba' in the Aramaic He would have spoken, but it was written in Koine Greek as 'pater'.

What Jesus said on the cross according to Mark is "Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachtha", which is entirely in Aramaic but Matthew renders the same phrase partially in Hebrew as "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani", probably to conform it closer to the quote from Psalm 22:1 which reads, " 'eli 'eli lamah `azabhtani" in Hebrew.

while nailed to the tree, that is Lat. Julius in Hebrew)

The name 'Julius' ('Iulius' in Latin and 'Ioúlios' in Greek) in Hebrew equivalent is 'Yehuda'.

The name 'Julius' is actually used in Acts 27:6 and is rendered as 'Ioúlios' in Koine Greek.

and of the Son (Jesus' father, Julius Caesar's only direct heir, Caesarion) and of the Holy Spirit (or rather «according to the Command of God»)

I can't comment on the 'Joseph = Cesarion in disguise' bit because there is no evidence for it. However, the Holy Spirit is rendered as 'hagios pneuma' in Koine Greek, meaning 'sacred breath'. The repeated use by Jesus of the 'Holy Spirit' to refer to the third person of God equivalent to the Old Testament 'ruach' breath of God (e.g: Genesis 1:2) suggests other than your interpretation.

, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (that he only revealed to his twelve original apostles). And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Time goes by, and then comes Saulus, the first Pope (not Peter in other words, Peter was true to Jesus, but still a slave of Saulus), and the arch type of the pontiff.

Peter and James were considered the elders of the Church in Jerusalem and Paul was a missionary who only visited Jerusalem for a very short period. How Peter could be a slave of Paul defies logic.

Peter refers to Paul as a beloved brother in 2 Peter 3:14-16.

No other person has shaped Christendom more than Saulus. When you read the epistles of Saulus, put on the devil's glasses, for all he commands the (60AD +/- a year or two) churches to do and not do and what he tells them are threats and false theology effectively excluding these Christians from anything Jewish, like excluding them from synagogues for worshipping humans as gods and prohibit Christians from circumcising their sons etc), take this sentence from Sauli letter to the Philippians for instance (verse 4:22) :

All the saints greet you (the saints Saulus had killed or enslaved), especially those of (....you who belong to...) Caesar’s household (i.e. the descendants of Jesus).

'pas Hagios' means 'all the holy ones', not the killed or enslaved. It is nonsense to say 'the killed or enslaved greet you'.

The greeting was from people that were alive at the time, that were holy people and some lived in Caesar's house. We know because Paul was under house arrest there about 61 AD, pending trial. The Caesar was Nero, whose opposition to Christianity (which came later) is well recorded. Christian tradition holds that Paul was beheaded at Nero's command, the same year that Nero committed suicide (Nero had attempted suicide several times previously).

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The young boy Caesarion survived, his body was never found when his parents, Julius and Cleopatra, fell victim of treason leaving the young lad's mighty parents killed

Just a point of order, are you saying Cleopatra and Julius Ceaser died concurrently, orphaning Cesarion? As I am sure you are aware, Cleopatra outlived Julius and died as Marc Antony's consort.

Otherwise, I do enjoy this take on the legend...appreciate the fodder

Nice mythology/revisionist history.

It would make a good T.V show, with the important primer: "this is a work of fiction".

I love how deeply you have been inspecting this topic, but you need to understand its METAPHOR, and happening here and now and there constantly.

you cant teach 2000 year old corpse to people, conciousness keeps breeding, dont worry.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The young boy Caesarion survived, his body was never found when his parents, Julius and Cleopatra, fell victim of treason leaving the young lad's mighty parents killed

Just a point of order, are you saying Cleopatra and Julius Ceaser died concurrently, orphaning Cesarion? As I am sure you are aware, Cleopatra outlived Julius and died as Marc Antony's consort.

Otherwise, I do enjoy this take on the legend...appreciate the fodder

If you read what I am writing here, you will see that I explain how Caesarion was about four when Julius was killed and around 18 when his mother Cleopatra was forced to commit suicide. Thanks for the compliments.

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you saying that Heli and Julius is not the same name? If you remove the latin male suffix -us in Julius, you get Juli, and in many Latin dialects and languages J and H are used interchangeably, as in Huli, and Verner's law also shows how E and U are common vowel shifts, i.e. Heli is one of many possible Hebrew readings of the name Julius, and if you translate it into Koine Greek you actually get the name Helios, the Sun. Jesus and Caesars are all about Solar worship. That's linguistics btw, you know, the Logos thing? Where on Earth did you manage to translate Julius into Yehuda? First syllable of Jehuda is Jahveh for heavens' sakes. And your other anachronisms only show your lack of imagination and your limited understanding of basic hermeneutics. *shaking head*

Interesting hypothesis here, so Jesus was the legitimate heir to the Ruler of Rome. He started another movement to compete with the usurpers and his top man Peter become the first pope. The popes and the Emperors competed for control and eventually the Popes won out, now with Peter the Roman as the current and last pope I guess we can expect the Caesars to regain control ?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: chr0naut
Are you saying that Heli and Julius is not the same name? If you remove the latin male suffix -us in Julius, you get Juli, and in many Latin dialects and languages J and H are used interchangeably

I believe that Spanish is the only language that interchanges 'J' with an 'H'.

, as in Huli, and Verner's law also shows how E and U are common vowel shifts, i.e. Heli is one of many possible Hebrew readings of the name Julius, and if you translate it into Koine Greek you actually get the name Helios, the Sun. Jesus and Caesars are all about Solar worship. That's linguistics btw, you know, the Logos thing?

Did you know that you can manipulate 'ghoti' to sound like 'fish'?

gh, pronounced 'f' as in enough;
o, pronounced 'ɪ' as in women; and
ti, pronounced 'sh' as in nation or motion.

Where on Earth did you manage to translate Julius into Yehuda?

It has been traditional for European Jews named Yehuda to take on variants of the name due to the negative connotation in Christian circles of 'Judas'.

The direct Latinization 'Iudas'/'Iudah' was still too close to the mark and so many took on the name based on the Latin root 'Iuli', hence 'Julian'. An example of this is Julian Klaczko the Polish politician, born 'Jehuda Lejb'.

There are good reasons to believe that pre-Christian era Jews may also have taken the name 'Julian' as an acceptably Romanized 'Judas'/'Jude'.

First syllable of Jehuda is Jahveh for heavens' sakes.

Wouldn't the first syllable be just 'Yah'?

'Yaveh' is a possible vocalization of the tetragrammaton, 'YHVH', or 'Yahweh' as we would say it.

And your other anachronisms only show your lack of imagination and your limited understanding of basic hermeneutics. *shaking head*

Hermeneutics is exegesis of the actual text, getting to the intended meaning of what is actually there, not filling in spaces that aren't in the original texts.

I'll have to re-read my posts. I don't think there were any anachronisms in them. Perhaps you could assist me by pointing them out?