First, you're right there was no "J" in Hebrew and in German, the first translation language of what was gathered early on, 50 CE + or -. the 'J' is pronounced as the English "H". Y'shua was the name of the man now called "Jesus" and was a common name at that time in Hebrew society. Similar to the name "John" which is used so widely today.

Second, why did you use a photo of an African American with dreads to represent Yeshua? He was not black and definitely not a blue-eyed white man as first portrayed in European and Germanic nations. Nor was he "bronze". He was the same skin tone as Arabs. He certainly didn't have "kinky" hair, nor did he have dreadlocks. He had the same hair middle-easterners have- dark, not kinky but sometimes "curly" His skin tone would certainly have darkened, tanned by the sun, as he walked so often while teaching but not tanned to bronze or black.

Thind, his physical appearance had nothing to do with what he taught so why did you feel the need to include it other than to rattle those who believe he was "white", or "black", as an African. He was neither nor was he "bronze". The Queen of Sheeba, consort of Solomon was African, thus 'black' which was distinct from the color of Solomon's skin tone. Now that those petty things are out of the way, you have the "Christ conscientious correct. Jesus never said the HE would save a single person from that person's transgressions. He said that he was the way in that he was Christlike and anyone who followed him, the way that he lived, would also become Christlike. The early Church used those words in a twisted manner to gain and keep power over others who were typically illiterate. And the Church continues to do that today with the knowledge that few people read their Bible and even fewer attempt to understand it. Those who do tend to leave the Church, taking away an income source that helps Church "leaders" maintain great political power.