This has nothing to do with Gnosticism versus the faith tradition created many years later in the name of Jesus... though, they didn't even get that right. His name wasn't Jesus.

The name Jesus came from a series of translations and transliterations. He was known in Aramaic, his mother tongue, as Yeshua Bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph).

We haven't even begun to talk about Gnosticism.

Anyone who has studied mythology and symbology for any length of time will immediately recognize the motifs running throughout the Bible. These patterns show up across cultures and spiritual traditions, centuries before Christianity existed.

You're quoting John 8 to interpret Genesis. I'm reading Genesis as it stands.

Genesis 3:22: God confirms the serpent told the truth. "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

You can interpret that through later theology created by the founders of Christianity and the religion they created ABOUT Yeshua, or you can read what the creation myth of Genesis actually says.

The Genesis narrative has multiple source traditions woven together. Scholars identify at least two distinct authorial hands in the text, though some argue for four separate sources commonly known as J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly).

The tale is rich with ancient symbology that predates later theological interpretations, similar to how the story of Noah and the great flood is not unique to Judaism or Christianity. That story has been used throughout multiple spiritual traditions to symbolize the washing away of the old and the ushering in of the new.

The gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written 40 to 70 years after Yeshua by anonymous communities, not by the disciples themselves. This is standard teaching in seminaries.

The names were added in the second century by church tradition, which is often done in religions to manufacture scriptural authority. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Reading a book rich with symbology, mythology, and parable as literal fact is to miss the mark. And that book, those teachings of Yeshua, are about you.

Hamartia (ἁμαρτία) is a Greek archery term that translates to missing the mark, which has been translated into the English word sin. Think about that.

To combine the Tanakh (Old Testament) and what has become called the New Testament in the same book is also to miss the mark.

The Tanakh speaks of the Judeo Father God who gets angry, becomes wrathful and vengeful, who teaches an eye for an eye.

The teachings of Yeshua were much more radical for the time. He taught to love one's neighbor as oneself, to help the needy, the concept of agape love, and that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

These teachings are much more in alignment with the Buddha, who lived 500 years before the birth of Yeshua.

These two books do not come from the same religion. When Yeshua referenced the Tanakh, he did so as any Jewish teacher would, citing scripture while teaching his radically different message of self-realization and enlightenment.

Yeshua himself never wrote anything. He wasn't a Christian. He knew nothing of the religion that would be created in his name in the years and decades after his death.

He was a Jewish mystic teaching direct experience of the divine, showing others they too could realize their unity with God.

Yeshua explicitly taught this.

Luke 17:20-21: The kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say see here or see there. For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.

John 14:12: Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these.

Psalm 82:6, which Yeshua quotes in John 10:34: I said, you are gods. You are all sons of the Most High.

1 Corinthians 3:16: Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?

But the religion created later flipped his message. Yes, he taught you how to awaken. Yes, he said the kingdom is within you and you're capable of what he did, and greater.

But the institution said forget all that. You're a sinner. He's special. You're not. Just believe in him, accept the sacrifice, and he'll handle everything. No inner work required.

You are God's beautiful creation... tainted at birth by original sin. You'll never be what Yeshua taught that you already are, but do your best. Show up. Tithe. Let the institution mediate your relationship with God.

Yeshua spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The gospels were written in Greek decades after his death by people who never met him.

Most English Bibles translate from those Greek texts, which means the words attributed to Yeshua have already passed through one language barrier.

The Peshitta preserves an Aramaic tradition closer to the language Yeshua actually spoke, but the version most English speakers read has been filtered through Greek theological concepts that didn't exist in his Jewish mystical context.

Just like the Buddha 500 years before, they turned a teacher of self-realization and enlightenment into an object of worship; declared that his attainment was beyond your grasp, and called anyone who actually followed his teaching a heretic.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Wow, this is such a spectacular short summary of what it took me over a decade of my own research and introspection to work out first hand!

🪬🫶

nostr:nevent1qqst28n7mtptw08l3298mw94dmzr8ecl5ypf9095y6mlk8nvn05e4dsppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5wrw2kz

You are well read.

In all of my minimalist/essentialist teachings there is one thing I have a hard time with. I have a hard time letting go of a good book.

Words cannot contain the truth, at best they can only point to it. Even after I have absorbed the teaching, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for the medium.

Some things are worth keeping. Books bring me joy, but living the teaching brings me more.

Banger truth

Many years ago someone asked me what I was seeking in all the books? Me: wisdom

Him: you know you already know everything in those books. You did even as a teenager

Me: NAHHHHHHH

Alas, he was right. It’s just been hard to bridge 🌉 who I was at various times in my life into a story that made sense … even to me.

Hope this makes sense. And respect 🫡

I am well read in western philosophy regarding minimalist thought (Stoicism, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Epicureanism, etc). But I am knowingly ignorant of eastern works. Ive studied Buddhist philosophy superficially. Where are my blind spots?

This is a can of worms, fren. Big question here.

Just about everything warrants study but I can maybe help reduce your scope for you.

It's a 3 hour listen. It's got a lot of lingo in it so you might have to treat it like a lecture or seminar, pause, take notes, look stuff up, etc.

https://fountain.fm/episode/xJhmGJwLayW0ADEwmU2L

Thanks!

Good job with this, Ava.

There was one point I'd question - I'm pretty sure the canonical gospels were written much later than that. That's about the time the so-called gnostic gospels were written, with the partial exception of John, which is an adaptation of an Egyptian text.

Thank you. Excellent question.

The gospels were written 40-70 years after Yeshua's death... that's when the texts themselves were composed by anonymous communities.

The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't added until the 2nd century. And they weren't officially canonized as scripture until the 4th century councils.

Three separate timelines. The writing, the attribution, and the canonization all happened centuries apart.

Mark was written first, around 70 CE. Matthew and Luke came later, around 80-85 CE, and scholars believe both authors used Mark as their source; along with a hypothetical lost document they call Q. John was written last, around 90-100 CE.

None of these authors knew each other. None of them met Yeshua. They were compiling oral traditions and earlier written fragments decades after his death, each shaped by the theological concerns of their own communities.

As for the Gnostic gospels—Thomas, Philip, Mary, Judas—those came even later. Most scholars (including Bart D. Ehrman) date them to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, well after the canonical gospels.

Some scholars like Elaine Pagels argue that Thomas may contain early oral traditions, but even she dates the text as we have it to around 90-140 CE at the earliest.

While some Gnostic texts, like Thomas (one of my favorites), may preserve early material, most scholars see them as reflecting later theological developments rather than earlier eyewitness accounts.

There are other scholars who put the gnostic gospels earlier. Modern gnostics themselves say they are earlier, and they have the advantage of a tradition that predates Jesus, and you can see how "gnosticism" (which is actually many different things) grew into gnostic Christianity, which then was narrowed and flattened into orthodoxy, which then did tried to exterminate their predecessors.

IMO its evident that Thomas is Q.

I hear you, and on the theology, we're on the same page.

I still remember the day I ran out to buy a first edition hardback copy of Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels.

And this wonderful quote...

"How can we tell the truth from lies? What is genuine, and thus connects us with one another and with reality, and what is shallow, self-serving, and evil? Anyone who has seen foolishness, sentimentality, delusion, and murderous rage disguised as God’s truth knows that there is no easy answer to the problem that the ancients called discernment of spirits. Orthodoxy tends to distrust our capacity to make such discriminations and insists on making them for us. Given the notorious human capacity for self-deception, we can, to an extent, thank the church for this. Many of us, wishing to be spared hard work, gladly accept what tradition teaches."

Elegant writing. Condescending message! She's critiquing the church for not trusting you to discern truth... while implying most people can't be bothered! Classic.

The teachings in Thomas... the kingdom within, discovering your own divine nature, self-knowledge as the path. This resonates way more with what a Jewish mystical teacher focused on enlightenment would actually have been teaching.

However...

When scholars date ancient texts, they look at when other writers first reference them, manuscript evidence, linguistic patterns, theological development. The earliest mentions of Thomas come from the late 2nd century. The papyrus fragments we have date around 200 CE. The Nag Hammadi manuscript is 4th century.

Could Thomas contain earlier oral traditions? Sure. That's what Pagels argues; the compiled text (90-140 CE) probably includes some early material mixed with later stuff. But we can't date the text earlier than the evidence allows.

On Thomas being Q... some have suggested it, but here's the problem: Thomas shows signs of knowing the synoptic gospels. When it shares sayings with Matthew and Luke, it often reflects their editorial changes. That means the version—at least as we currently have it—came after them, not before.

Ehrman points out that Thomas lacks the apocalyptic urgency that marks the earliest Jesus material. The synoptic gospels present Yeshua preaching that the kingdom is coming soon. Thomas presents the kingdom as already here, within you.

Ehrman sees that as a later theological development, but it could just as easily show that the original mystical teaching got changed into apocalyptic urgency by the early church.

So while I agree... the theology in Thomas is most likely closer to what he actually taught. But the text itself, as we have it, was compiled later.

The tradition is older than the documents.

My favorite line from the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 70):

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

This thread. Is. Wild.

Biblical Christianity doesn’t call Christians sinners. It says they are perfect in spirit (Hebrews 10:14). They are new creations (2 Cor. 5:17). Created in right-standing and set-apartness (Eph. 4:22). They are one spirit with God, no separation (1 Cor. 6:17). As he is right now, so are they right now (1 John 4:17). Many Christians believe this. https://youtu.be/0FGnjfywcYQ?si=oJltLHb-FZRs2cHU

Pretty that's **_after_** being made perfect in Jesus Christ. What's left out, unfortunately, is what that means.

Good stuff in this thread! Ava explained it very well. My mind doesn't catalogue stuff like this, so it takes a long time for me to make responses like this. My advice : read this whole thread 5 times and start searching anything new. Red Tail Hawk has a great comment further down too, which has some new stuff for me.

"After 700 years, the laurel will turn green again and good men and women will return." (Prophesy) Well, here it is. This is it turning green.

nostr:nevent1qqst28n7mtptw08l3298mw94dmzr8ecl5ypf9095y6mlk8nvn05e4dspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygzwhzp3p445ak2ud4n289dn6084txu9ltkg7a53mt75qk5jup2ad5psgqqqqqqs49vk93

Well said. Christ was a perennialist.

He sojourned in Egypt.

He traveled as far east as Ayodhya, India, formerly known as Adjudia, where there was a Nacaal Temple. There he learned the Naga language which he spoke with his dying words. Matthew and Mark guessed. He never would have asked God why God abandoned him. That thought would have been absurd given the Spinozan nature of God. God cannot abandon anything that exists.

Stories of Mary, Joseph of A, and the disciples fleeing to the UK after Christ's crucifixion suggest Joseph had contacts there, most likely related to the tin trade. Also, he would have known the Druids which means Christ likely studied with them too during some of the years not accounted for in any of the gospels.

I learned recently that the Druids were associated with serpents. Egyptians certainly revered serpents.

Naga literally means serpent.

Matthew 10:16 was about kundalini and enlightenment.

Thank you. Are you familiar with George M. Lamsa's translation of the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic of the Peshitta?

I have multiple translations of the Bible, and they all provide valuable insights, but I've found this one to be particularly illuminating in many ways.

There's a compelling—yet controversial—argument about "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" around how we interpret the Aramaic words themselves.

Traditional version (Matthew 27:46):

Greek: ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι

Transliteration: eli eli lama sabachthani

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

The Peshitta Aramaic text (used by both traditional translators AND Lamsa):

ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ

Traditional interpretation of this Aramaic:

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Lamsa's interpretation of the same Aramaic:

"My God, my God, for this purpose I was spared!"

The debate centers on two Aramaic words:

ܠܡܢܐ (lemana) - Does this mean "why" or "for what purpose"?

ܫܒܩܬܢܝ (shabaqtani) - The root word shabaq has multiple valid meanings: "to leave, to abandon, to forsake" AND "to allow, to permit, to spare, to keep for a purpose."

Mainstream scholars translate it as "why have you forsaken me" because Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1, where the context is abandonment.

Lamsa and others argue that if Jesus meant total abandonment, he would have used taatani (forsaken because unwanted) or nashatani (forgotten). The choice of shabaq suggests "left for a purpose" rather than "carelessly abandoned."

Both interpretations are linguistically valid... it's a question of context and theology.

You're right... a mystic teacher crying out about abandonment at the moment of his purpose? That makes no sense theologically.

"This is my destiny" is much more in alignment than "God abandoned me."

I also recommend checking out Idioms in the Bible Explained and a Key to the Original Gospels by Lamsa.

I'm not familiar with the Peshitta. Thank you for putting it on my radar.

I've looked at some Aramaic, mostly the Lord's Prayer, which, to me, seems like Yeshua was "covering the bases" of the Tree of Life from Kabbalah with a tip of the cap to karma for good measure.

To explain the claim that Yeshua's final words were of the Naga language will require a bit of a word wall, but I think you'll find this interesting.

For context, Chan Thomas was a polymath engineer for a major aerospace contractor assigned to work on ARPA projects. ARPA became DARPA in 1972. Thomas wrote a book that was declassified by the CIA in January 2013...not long after the long count reset. Given the subject matter, I'm calling sus on the timing of that declassification. In my experience, declassified stuff has been a good source of super interesting stuff, i.e. the significance of Itzhak Bentov's biomedical models which includes a model of "the physio-kundalini syndrome" and an appendix in a book written by an MD on kundalini.

In Chan Thomas's book, he covers a lot of James Churchward's work. If you've ever checked out Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham leads off talking about the Piri Reis map and Professor Charles Hapgood's earth crust decoupling & displacement hypothesis.

Essentially the idea is that the asthenosphere layer below the crust experiences induced fluidity, seemingly related to geomagnetic excursions in which the magnetic poles begin wandering rapidly. The asymmetrically distributed land masses above sea level produce a net torque that bears upon the crust/lithosphere. This is the sword of Damocles.

When conditions are appropriate to cause this induced fluidity in the asthenosphere, every single tectonic plate on the planet shifts within a relatively brief window of time, i.e. half or maybe a quarter of a day. The models suggest that the ice caps are gyroscopically mediated to the equator by centripetal forces (I know centripetal force isn't a thing...it's just a useful, even if imperfect, word to help describe it). They drag everything else along for the ride.

Due to the rotational momentum (west to east) of the oceans and atmospheric air, when the rug is pulled, so to speak, the land masses get inundated with bodies of water including lakes, ponds, rivers, etc., not just oceans. Every plate is shifting so it's earthquakes and tsunamis galore, not to mention volcanic activity. Basically it's Ragnarok.

So, with that in mind, relatively flat land masses could become submerged during one of these events. Induced fluidity in the asthenosphere coupled with a very flat continent getting swallowed by the ocean's momentum and wave after wave of tsunamis during a pole flip and its immediate aftermath....all that water weight could be enough to push that continent down below sea level. The asthenosphere is ~60 miles thick. Denver is 1 mile high. If a continent was relatively flat, i.e. a quarter or half mile at peak elevation, a 1% deflection in the asthenosphere in that location would be enough to sink it.

That said, prior to the pole flip research done by Hapgood, Thomas, US Air Force, etc., Churchward was doing his thing. Churchward learned how to interpret Naga glyphs from a Naacal priest named Rishi. Later on Churchward connected the dots between his work and William Niven's work which showed that the ancient Mayan glyph language was the same as the ancient Naga glyph language.

Churchward's research suggested that the now lost continent of Mu existed approximately 50,000 years ago (consistent with the Ra material 10.15 aka the Law of One which, by the way, is super consistent with Hindu teachings on chakras and kundalini and Qigong...it's so good, big recommend). It existed roughly in the area between Rapa Nui, Hawaii, and the Fijis.

Per Augustus Le Plongeon and James Churchward, colonial settlers from Mu were called Mayans but the people of Mu called themselves the Naacal. This explains why Maya/maya is in both hemispheres as a significant term. It also explains why Nagas were in NE India all up in the area where "maya" is taught as a spiritual concept but Nagualism/nagual and Nahuatl are practiced by the Mayas of the West.

It's probably good to parse the nuance between Lemuria and Mu, as well. Lemuria was most likely Kumari Kandam and was likely part of the greater Mu colonial "empire". Mu was not equal to Lemuria but Lemuria was likely part of Mu's network of settled lands. Both the motherland and Lemuria met the same ultimate fate but they were separate land masses.

It's also probably good to point out that Churchward's work was largely dismissed likely because he didn't have the benefit of the earth crust decoupling and displacement hypothesis. I don't think his work was all bathwater though. I think there was a lot of baby in there. Your perspective on this would be awesome since, as far as I know, you're learning or already speak Sanskrit. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

So, with that context in mind, you're probably already aware that Yeshua traveled during the years not accounted for in the canonical or non-canonical gospels. Both Churchward and Don Antonio Batres Jaurequi agree independently on the translation of Yeshua's final words with very minor differences.

Churchward says it should be "Hele, hele, lamat zabac ta ni." which means "I faint, I faint, Darkness is overcoming me."

Don Antonio Batres, a once prominent Maya scholar in Guatemala, says "The last words of Jesus on the Cross were in Maya, the oldest known language." He says they should read "Hele, Hele, lamah sabac ta ni." Put in English: "Now I am fainting; the darkness covers my face." They agree on all material points. The primary spelling difference is lamah vs lamat which is morphologically inconsequential as the h is aspirated and the t is silent.

This translation makes a lot more sense to me given the context of the end on the cross. It seems to have multiple, independent translations supporting this.

Thank you for sharing that. The naga/serpent symbolism across traditions is definitely worth exploring... you're right that I'm studying and can speak Sanskrit and Chinese, and those archetypal connections interest me.

I haven't gone down the Churchward/Mu rabbit hole, so I can't speak to those claims. My practice has been working with texts in their original languages: Aramaic (Peshitta), Greek (Thomas), Sanskrit, Pali, classical Chinese etc—and then exploring their mystical dimensions.

Translation always loses something. You have to go to the source language to find the depth of meaning.

What draws me to the Aramaic debate around shabaqtani is that we can examine the actual manuscript and see how one root word authentically carries multiple meanings. That kind of textual ambiguity creates space for mystical interpretation without requiring unverifiable historical claims.

The serpent appears everywhere: kundalini, Eden, the caduceus. Those symbols speak to something real in human consciousness, regardless of whether there was a continent called Mu.

In the end, words, symbols, and myths are just pointers. People worship the pointers, build shrines to them, but don't actually go where they are pointing. As far as religious institutional control is concerned, this is it.

Someone can describe the experience of a beautiful sunrise from the mountaintop, but words cannot give you that experience. Until you're standing there yourself, you have to rely on belief in the experience of others.

The guru is only there as a guide, to help you find your own path up the mountain. Once you have your own experience, there's no need to believe in the experience of others. You have the experience, the direct realization. This is the real teaching.

Exactly. Translation always loses something which is why it's good to go to the source. In this case, the source language goes back 50,000 years. Basically Churchward found himself in the endzone looking up at a Hail Mary pass and caught it but almost nobody knows about his work. He went boots on the ground Indiana Jones mode for like 50 years in the late 1800s and early 1900s inspecting actual archaeological sites, engraved stones, temples, etc. Very important work and worth any seeker's time and attention if you're ever looking for something interesting to dig into.

Words are very important. They morphologically branch off from one another.

A great example is the word "macabre". Macabre clearly derives from Merkabah. Merkabah and Kabbalah are sibling teachings. Each teaches us how to balance the Divine Masculine (ka) with the Divine Feminine (ba). On the Tree of Life, Vishuddha is represented by the hidden Sephirah called Da'ath. Da'ath, morphologically, is a match for "death".

So, the esoterically uninformed translation of ancient emblems of "mortality" found near sarcophagi led to a distortion of understanding in the great game of "telephone" of human transmission of information through time. Kabbalah gained a connotation of being associated with mortality due to this esoterically uninformed translation. That connotation transferred onto the sibling, Merkabah, which eventually yielded "macabre".

I think Christ's death was a critical point in history for many reasons. Linguistically, his dying words created a linguistic fork because nobody present understood him. People guessed. Someone thought Christ called for Elias because Eli sounds like Heli. Matthew and Mark guessed. Matthew spoke Aramaic. He wouldn't have had to guess if it was Aramaic. So, they guessed and then people took that guess as "gospel truth" (pardon the pun) and the rest is history. That may be wrong but it makes the most sense to me given the totality of facts presented.

Thanks for confirming your linguistic abilities. I know you said it was on your list to check out at some point, so whenever you get to it, you'll find that I connect dots between Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and Egyptian. Major points of interest include:

-Mu is a character in both Greek and Chinese.

-Ancient Greek (pre-Euclidian) pronunciations of the Greek alphabet resemble a flood narrative to anyone familiar with the Polynesian family of languages.

-Mu, in China, can mean tree or wash. Churchward points out that Mu, the motherland, was a civilizational hub with colonies. They likened Mu to a tree that bears fruit from whose seeds new trees, or colonies, sprout. The fact that Mu sank in a cataclysm and was "washed" beneath the ocean gives rise to the other meaning of Mu.

-The Rebus principle applies to both Mandarin and Egyptian.

-The Mandarin Zhong, Japanese Naka, and Greek Phi are all topologically equivalent.

-Naka means center, middle, within...conjuring spiritual concepts like "center yourself", "the middle path" and "the answers are within". Naka is also morphologically equivalent to...Naga.

-Chi, Rho, and Phi represent the Div Masc, Div Fem, and Div Child/enlightened being. These show up in many places including Hero, Hera, Heracles, Chiron (who "taught" Aesclepius, among other heros), chariot, hierophant, hieroglyphic, and Cairo.

Another fun one is djinn. Pretty sure that one is also related to Vishuddha. Djinn gives us genuine, engine, engineer, ingenious, genius, genie, gene, generate, genetic, and many other words.

I agree. Words are pointers. They say that when the guru points at the moon, the imbecile examines the finger. I think that wisdom needs some nuance injected into it because it is not imbecilic to examine the finger if one's intention in examining it is to determine as precisely as is reasonably possible what it is pointing to.

There's a saying. Numbers don't lie but mathematicians use numbers to tell lies. I've "memed" that thought somewhat. Liars use words to tell lies but words themselves contain profoundly deep truths.

Pleasure conversing with you, fellow seeker. Respect.

🙏

I really appreciate the thoroughness of your teaching above. And, as Trivium says, you are well read.

The one thing I can offer to the discussion comes from Ernest Holmes, who summarized it thusly, “Yeshua was the Great Example, not the Great Exception.”

And it is that simple teaching that gives me the hope of living. There’s nothing for me to strive for or to do, for that which Yeshua was, I AM.

Thank you. Many years ago, long before founding IKITAO, I was on my way to becoming a CSL minister... Dr. Holmes got it. We're not here to worship the example. We're here to become it.

Why should a person trust what you or I have to say? Why should a person trust the texts or the authors who wrote them?

Christianity is not a religion based on a book or a collection of them. It is based off of divine revelation, more specifically of the God-Man Jesus Christ. We can trust this truth because of the great witnesses (holy men and women) that have lived and dedicated themselves to that revelation often unto death for the last 2000 years. It is the Apostles and afterward, the Saints who Christ works through. Christ's Church, like Christ himself, is incarnational (exists physically in time and space). It is through His Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, where people can find the fullness of this divine revelation. It it through His divinely appointed Church where Truth is preserved and passed down through the ages.

https://youtu.be/E2x2WTWjcEA

Calling Jesus “Yeshua” isn’t a big secret. It’s the equivalent of someone calling John “Juan” in Spanish.

No. It isn't. Yeshua is closer to Joshua.

Correct. Jesus is a form of Yeshua which is a form of Joshua. Like how in Spanish they say “hey-zoos”.

No. It's not like that. Spanish Jesús and English Jesus both derive from Greek Iesous.

His name was Yeshua (Aramaic form of Hebrew Yehoshua). Joshua comes directly from Hebrew Yehoshua.

They are not even remotely the same name. Jesus is the result of Greek and Latin transliteration. It is a transliteration of a transliteration—not his name at all.

Did the Greeks use Iesous for Yeshua in their writings?

Yes. Greek couldn't handle Hebrew/Aramaic sounds (no "sh" sounds, required masculine "-s" ending; couldn't end in "a" sound), so both became Iesous. That's the problem - Greek flattened the original distinctions, changing the name.

Aramaic Yeshua (Joshua) → Greek Iesous → Latin Iesus → Spanish Jesús / English Jesus

All I’m saying is it’s not some big secret Yeshua was the proper name for Jesus. I’ve heard people across all denominations (Catholic to Baptist) refer to Jesus as Yeshua.