The movie portrays a language loosely based on the modern Chaldean-Arabic. The bottom line is that it's absolute gibberish, yet people who don't know the difference are being misled regarding its tauted authenticity. Once again, history is being re-written, and this time what is alleged to be authentic is not.
The name of the Lord in the original Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew language is in two syllables, E-sho, which is then trans-literated as Eashoa the Messiah.
The English name "Jesus Christ" in the true Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew language is pronounced:
Ea-shoa' M'shee-kha
Eashoa' means "the Life-Giver"
M'sheekha means "the Anointed One"
Eashoa' M'sheekha means "The Anointed Life-Giver"
In the Ancient Aramaic, the name for Jesus is spelled "yeh-sheen-waw-ein." In English the "yeh" becomes "J," the "sheen" becomes "s," the "waw" becomes a "u," and the "ein," becomes an "s." Now, this might not sound like the same name, but since three of the four letters in the name don't have English language equivalents, the English pronunciation had to be modified. Eashoa' and "Jesus" are the very same name, albeit the transliterations are of two very different languages with four thousand years of divergent evolution.
In the Mel Gibson movie, the Chaldean-Arabic name Yeshua is used. In fact, there is a large Christian movement within the U.S. that no longer refers to "Jesus" in English. They insist that the word "Yeshua" is the only correct or authentic name to use. But the modern Arabic-Chaldean "Yeshua" is simply a distortion of the Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew name Eashoa'.
The name of Christ comes from the Greek word for "anointed." The Greek word "Khristos" comes from the word for "oil." The English language is based on the Latin, which in turn is based on the Greek. The word Msheekhah is the original word for "The Anointed." Another good choice for "Christ" is the Messiah -- again from M'sheekhah. It is the same word in all the languages, designating Jesus as the Messiah.
This further leads to the fallacy that the name of Eashoa is not mentioned in the Old Testament. However, Eashoa' is the correct Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew name of the Lord as written in the Old Testament, and it means "Life-Giver" or "Savior."
If the name is not going to be pronounced correctly, then everyone had might as well just say "Jesus." At least everyone understands what "Jesus" means as it's the Anglicized name for Eashoa'.
WAS JESUS CHRIST FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER-GOD?
There is a complete rejection of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures in the Mel Gibson movie. For example, the pronunciation of Jesus' words from the Cross in Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew is Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani. In the movie, we hear the words Ullahi, Ullahi, lema sabactani which is translated in error as My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me.
This utterance by Eashoa' while on the Cross is fully retained in all the the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, but its transliteration is in total error. Nowhere in the Aramaic Scriptures does the word sh'wik-thani mean "forsaken." On this passage alone may hang the entire misinterpretation of the Scriptures by Western Christianity.
The Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic text of the passage accurately reads Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani and there is no translation or addition after it, such as "Why has thou forsaken me," because there's no need to translate the Ancient Aramaic. This passage, as well as the entire New Testament, is already written in the Ancient Aramaic texts and needs no "add-ons."
In the original ancient Aramaic, the passage spoken literally says in English, "I AM, I AM, wherefore have you left me?" The Aramaic word Eil is a title of God, "IS" or "I AM." Idiomatically, l'ma-na (wherefore) implies destiny. Sh'wik-thani means "left me" in the sense of the purpose for which Jesus was left on the cross. It absolutely does not mean "forsaken" in this usage.
This fallacy has evolved out of the modern Chaldean-Arabic version of the Bible, the very version that the Greek and the Latin Vulgate are translated from, as well as the 1611 King James Version and all other Western Bibles. They all have changed this passage and declared - without any authenticity or written proof - that the Father-God forsook His Son.
Now, this Mel Gibson film comes on the world stage unintentionally exposing this hypocrisy of the Western churches. On the one hand, the mainstream Christian churches of the West claim that the New Testament was written in Greek; and on the other hand, they retain the Chaldean-Arabic passage in the Text of their Bibles. One could not be more ironic if they had tried.
