Does "Jesus Christ" come from "Hesus Krishna"?

The answer is, yes. Hesus is where we get Jesus from, though there is a bit more to it. When different languages come together, we get translations, transliterations and equivalent usages, when Hesus was introduced to the British Isles and the language of the Britons, it became Gesus. When the Bible and Christianity came along and the name Iesos (Ieso(s), a Greek Goddess of Healing.. you add the 's' on the end if you want to name your son after her) was being used, after they stopped using the Nomina Sacra to represent him. There was no name we had no translation or equivalent for him here in the British Isles, so the closest sounding name available was chosen, which was Gesus, aka the Horned God. Subsequently, they used the Horned God's appearance for that of Devil, in an effort to dissociate the name Gesus with the Pagan god. The English spelling of Gesus was used up until King James came along and began changing many names to begin with the letter 'J'.

To point out a small fact about the word Kristos, it actually comes from another Greek word, I forget the spelling, Creo, or something along that sound, which has several meanings, one, to paint/whitewash, 2nd, to prick someone, 3rd, to take drugs or drug someone, lastly, to stroke yourself (you should get what the last one means without an explanation, but just in case, it is a sexual act)!

No, there is no historical basis. "Jesus" comes from the Hebrew, and "Christ" come from the Greek.

There is so much stupidity in this article I don't know where to even start (I would just trash the whole thing).

Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects.

That alone should be enough to ignore this entire article. Nicea was set up in order to resolve the Arian crisis, not to invent Jesus.

We know that orthodox Christianity existed long before Nicea. The New Testement was all written before Nicea. The Early Fathers also mention him (the fact that I have to bring this up saddens me: the Age of Reason is long over). St. Ignatius (AD 100-117) calls Jesus Christ God straight out with no mercy.

Also, I doubt anyone at Nicea, including Constantine, knew who Kristna even was.

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them.

Constantine had Arian leanings, and his sons actually persecuted the orthodox in favor of the Arians. If Constantine was really in charge, Nicean would have been much less clear in its cannons at the very least.

To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus

First of all, the concept of "British" wouldn't exist for at least another millennium, although, Charitably, he probably meant "Britianic." Not only is Jesus just the Greek translation of the Hebrew name "Yahweh saves" (meaningful name much?), but why would Constantine and the Greek priests in the "civilized, educated" Greek cities care about the "backward and odd" Barbarian gods of a backwater colony at the edge of the empire?

and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

There is an infinite difference between "god" and "God." Does this person even understand the Jewish or Christian or Muslim religions?

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God.

He might have the numbers right here: only like 5 Bishops supported Arianism. In actuality, the debate was not so much on Arianism (most of the Bishops rejected that nonsense), but on how to define the orthodox beliefs. Like, some Bishops seemed to be concerned that some expressions of the Trinity could be misinterpreted as modalism, and so on. Eventually, they decided that "Christ is "h*m*ousian" or "consubstantial" with the Father" is the best expression of the faith.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines

That sounds so Scientificiallistic! It just must be true!

I found that much of what he writes isn't actaully his either, it seems: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

And on that website, that author cites occult trash like the Oahspe.

Now, stop searching for such conspiracy theories! This essay is the equivalent intellectually of a 9/11 truther.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Lactantius, in his Divine Institutes, refers to a god named Hesus:

The Gauls used to appease Hesus and Teutas with human blood.

(Chapter XXI)

In addition, Wikipedia has an article on a god named Esus or Hesus which appears to fit the bill. But the name does not appear anywhere in Eusebius; neither do Krishna, Mithra, Zeus, or Horus. Thus, the quote referred to in the extract you give is spurious.

In addition, if addition were necessary, the names "Iesous" and "Khristos" (the Greek originals of "Jesus" and "Christ") were in use long before the time of Constantine. Papyrus 4, containing sections of the Gospel of Luke, dates to approximately the late 2nd–early 3rd century (that is, between 175 and 225 AD), and includes among other sections Luke's genealogy of Jesus (which begins with his name); similarly, Papyrus 45, dated to the mid-3rd century (about 250 AD), contains Mark's narration of Peter's declaration "You are the Christ". Both of these significantly predate any council that might have possibly taken place under Constantine (who was born in 272 AD).

There is, therefore, no reason to believe that the name "Jesus Christ" originated from a divinity named "Hesus Krishna", nor any reason to believe that such a "divinity" was ever constructed.