In Roman mythology, Jupiter was originally called IOPPITER since there was no "J" (and no lower case letters).?

Yeshua.

Also, since Jesus was first described in Hebrew, it would not matter that there was no "J" in the Roman language.

The name was Joshua's equivalent in Hebrew, which is two forms:

Y' - SHOO - uh

or

Y' - HOE -- shoo - uh

The beginning letter in Hebrew would be the yod.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Likewise, the translation of the Old Testament most often referred to in the New Testament was the Septuagint, which was also written in Greek. If you look at the name of Joshua as written in the Septuagint, it is identical in all respects to the name of Jesus found in the Greek New Testament. This clearly demonstrates that Jesus is merely a varying rendering of what was the same as Joshua. Almost all of the names are spelled very differently in the OT and the NT.

NT James is identical to OT Jacob, even though they may look different.

For some reason, when they translated the NT, they used extremely different forms for the names, and over the years, they have not had the sense or creativity to get back to the correct names. At this point, people would never acept it if they tried to make a Bible with the names correctly rendered as they actualy ARE in the text:

eg. Aheva instead of Eve

Avel instead of Abel

Kayin instead of Cain

Aharon instead of Aaron

Avram and Avraham instead of Abram and Abraham

These are just a few ....

Iesus

New Testement was written in Greek while the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. What point are you making?

My understanding is that in Hebrew/Aramaic that name would be Yeshua/Yesua, in Greek it would have been Iesous, in Latin Iesus, and translated to English Jesus.

>Iesous, in Latin

Which was a bad transliteration. Which makes the English version - jesus - bogus.

Gratz for getting your god's name wrong for centuries xtian.

I think we know what happens to blasphemers. :)