Although they both mean "anointed one" in English,the latter refers exclusively to the messiah in Tanakh,while the former refers just like the name "
When you also realize that in Judaism,according to Devarim(hellenized to Deuteronomy)13:2-6,no Jew,especially a Rabbi would ever have said the Torah was done away with,much less declare himself "the son of G-d",you realize that any logically thinking scholar must ask the following questions:
- What does Orthodox Judaism believe?
- What is the Hebrew/Aramaic meaning of....?
- What was the political situation?
- What do later historians write?
- Any there any documented clues in the regards to these first century events?
- Is the New Testament(displacement theology term invented by Marcian!) genuine,or redacted?
Anyway...when the narrator reads the names on the ossuary,he keeps saying " James the brother of Jesus",I kept yelling "That's not what it says,dummy!You can't read!"It says: "Ya'acov Bar Yosef...."
I don't see anything wrong with Anglicization,but,it is always best to preserve the original language terms when dealing with certain subjects,but,one should also make sure that the Anglicized name DOES equal the linguistic term in that language.In this case,they don't!
This is what I mean by supposition. On all these programs,they have "professors",etc,from
Christian backgrounds,rabbiting the same regurgitated stuff,never bothering to check their sources.
In other fields,if experts did this,they'd get themselves in a lot of trouble,but,in religion it's allowed,because like Columbus' discovery of America being pre dated by the Vikings,there's no sense changing history because nobody cares anyway,and,because "religion is big business(for Israel)" and money,support and votes count!
After a while it got so bad I turned it off.
May the truth be told -yet!