There is so much arguing going on concerning the say His Name and the Name of the Father should or should not be used or appear. Most of this centers around appearance, although it is not seen quite like that, as expert after expert is quoted in support of this or that idea, concept or theory.
What we all need to understand is that we are dealing with letters, characters, images, of other languages being turned into other languages. This is called “transliteration”, not translation, the two terms are completely different though related when doing name and word studies.
What is actually be dealt with and discussed but not realized is “phonetics” – let’s take the time to understand this as it will remove much of the confusion and give the scholars some rest.
PHONETIC: (Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary)
1 a : of or relating to spoken language or speech sounds b : of or relating to the science of phonetics
2 : representing the sounds and other phenomena of speech: as a : constituting an alteration of ordinary spelling that better represents the spoken language, that employs only characters of the regular alphabet, and that is used in a context of conventional spelling b : representing speech sounds by means of symbols that have one value only c : employing for speech sounds more than the minimum number of symbols necessary to represent the significant differences in a speaker's speech
This is where it all begins and ends, but it seem everyone is all tied up with letters, and characters, and images of letters and appearances. There are some Holy Name Bibles attempting to skirt the issue by producing Bibles with special names reproduced, in the text, in Hebrew characters, some have even resorted to displaying the name of God and of our Savior in the Paleo Hebrew, a language no one uses anymore and, in truth, is a lost language. How does this help with pronouncing, or saying, verbally, or mentally the birth name of our Savior? The reasoning, I have read, is so when you come across His name written in Paleo Hebrew, or ancient Hebrew (whatever that is) or in some cases, Modern Hebrew, you can say or read His name however you see fit. This is supposed to remove the argument among the Sacred Names movement concerning pronunciations that vary slightly, one from another.
All of this is just so much gibberish. I know I will be called on this and some will use certain slang terms to put me in my place, but I wonder, what language will it be in?
We do not need to be linguist to use common sense and to see the truth of a matter. The endless parading of one scholar against another to prove a name is to be presented this way and that is futile – well, for those wanting to move on in their studies and not get bogged down by too much, outside, knowledge. It can be interesting and even beneficial in expanding the scope of your understanding but the primary issue for a believer is what name do you use, how do you say it, or do you know what you are saying? This all centers around the “phonetics” of a name, the appearance actually comes later, or should.
Let’s take a look at this and try to understand that when we call on His Name, when we confess His Name it is a sound we are making that identifies our Savior and our God. When Adam and Eve heard the Name of YHWH for the first time do you suppose they saw “letters”, maybe in “Paleo Hebrew”? Common sense tells you the answer is, no. The writing came later and then the arguing began. (Paleo: 1 : involving or dealing with ancient forms or conditions *paleobotany* 2 : early : primitive : archaic *Paleolithic*)
For the purpose of this article we will not go chasing after what the experts say. You will see the sense in this as were make simple observations that do not require expert approval. Why not? How do you suppose the Apostles, uneducated (excluding Paul) for the most part, survived? We do not see them being challenge concerning our Savior’s Name, and we do not see reams of scholarly presentations from the Sages and the Rabbis of the day either. In fact the educated, the scholars, if you will, were amazed at the common sense understanding the Apostles seemed to possess and wondered how they became so smart – educated? Here we have ignorant hillbilly Galileans, espousing truth with such conviction. Speaking with such authority and truth -- denying any successful challenge from Rabbi, Scribe, or Lawyer of the day to the point the only recourse the scholars in religious authority felt the need to plot their murder. Read the Book of Acts and you will see this struggle within the early Church.
What do you think when you see the letters, Y H W H? You see English letters, right, from the English alphabet, right? The Hebrew letters look far different and today we even have copies of the Paleo Hebrew and those letters look different from either the English or Modern Hebrew. When a Hebrew sees these four letters in his own language the sound (phonetics) of those letters are reproduced in his or her mind. The same thing is true of the four letters seen in the English form for those speaking English.
Someone, then desiring to share what they hear in their own mind, attempt to reproduce, in letters, what they are hearing – yes, I said hearing. When you read, you hear, the letters form sounds in your head and the sounds are intelligent and recognizable. YaHshua once made this plain to His Disciples when He told them that the words your hear are spirit – He did not say the words you see.
Most, when looking at the four letters, YHWH, hear, “YaHWeH”. Some insist on YeHWeH. Notice it is the adding of the letter, a and e, as vowels to help in the pronunciation of these four letters in English. Those two letters are not, technically, part of the Name. This is also true of the Name of our Savior, YaHshua (YH shua). Some like YaHushua better (more on that later).
Another thing we need to understand is that YWHW is the English “transliteration” of what we perceive the original is. This is true of all languages -- just as the Hebrew letters is a “transliteration” in their own language. What we see in the Hebrew, then, when pronounced (Phonetically) by a Hebrew speaking person should sound very close, if not the same, as when and English speaking person repeats the “transliterated” letter of our Creator’s Name. Yes, we allow for accents, and dialects, after all, it is our Creator that divided the languages. But a time is coming when we will all call on Him with one voice.
(Zep 3:9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD
(YHWH), to serve him with one consent. KJV
That is something our Creator, God
and Savior, has planned for the future, obviously, as it certainly has not
happened. For now we are stuck with
“transliterations” from one language to another, and these “transliterations”
is the movement of “phonetic” (sounds), reproduced into letters of another
language to produce the same sound – as near as possible. With this being understood we can disregard
such statements from favorite scholars, ancient and modern, that tell us a
certain forms of letters do not appear in certain names. For example, one scholar of great repute,
says the name YaHshua, is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. He means, of course, the Hebrew Scriptures in
existence today, as the original writings from the original authors are lost,
only fragments. This does not mean the
accuracy of the Holy Bible is faulty as the fragments and some pieces of aged
and ancient copies and small references from times dating back over the
centuries before our Savior confirm the accuracy of the words. This is one reason the Isaiah Scroll,
discovered at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) is so important. It was penned around the time our Savior
walked the Earth and when compared to the modern, Hebrew writings, the Old
Testament, we see the accuracy to the near letter.
Using your God given intellect, think for a minute – the Isaiah Scroll, the most complete book of writings we know as the Holy Bible, or the Hebrew Scriptures? I know some of you think the Holy Bible we have today came directly from Moses and the Prophets. True, but we do not have any of his or their original writings. Even the Isaiah Scroll is a copy of a copy penned by one of the Qumran scribes no further back than 335-324 BC. When Moses copied what YaHWeH told him to write down (Tanach, or the Law) was at least 1,000 years previously and no one has any of those original copies. The Prophets all came later and all of their writings are copies from the lost, extinct original writings.
What this means
is that the scholars of today are working with “best guess scenarios”. This does not make them wrong in any way, but
it means there is room for improvement and the rules they make up is for their
own use in an effort to standardize a modern language, not to restore the
"lost" language of the Hebrews.
There is also room, lots of room, for personal or collective bias to
enter into the equation, and it does.
In the Scriptures we have today the Name of our Savior, in the form, YaHshua, is not found. YaHushua is, however, so what are we to conclude? Using YaHshua is incorrect and Yahushua is correct? When you go to the scholars making this point they do not want you to use either form (as we will see later). They had much rather you use titles, or broken forms like Y’shua, or Yeshua. Sometimes their intentions are honorable. They understand what the name of the God of Israel is, and they do not want the Gentiles corrupting this holy Name so it pleases them to mislead, or misdirect, anyone wanting to use the Name (the Shem) and this includes Jews of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox sects too. The argument centers on an individual given the Name of YaHshua, or YaHushua, at birth. Our Savior, YaHshua, carries the Name of the Heavenly Father and the Name of the God of Israel. This Name the Hebrews work at hiding from the world in a misdirected, self-righteous act of jealously -- yes, they are jealous of the Gentiles desiring to follow and accept YaHshua as their Savior, and if they could they would destroy all references leading any Gentile or Jew, for the matter, daring to use or call on that Name.
quotes a Jewish authority saying this letter or that letter does not apply they
are talking about letters, characters, images of
sounds. It has been accept that certain
letter make certain sounds when used and each language has letters of their own
that may appear differently but in their language make the same sound, or very
near it. It is all about the “phonetic” , as mentioned before.
Now, certain letters of a language have been set up as the better
choice, or choices for reproducing a certain sound, these letters represent the
“transliteration”, then, of the name or word being reproduced. The object is to reproduce the name, or word
in the same sound as the other language.
The rules have been set by linguist as to which
letters best suit certain situation and is accepted by most. What is not revealed to the reader is that
other letter choices may be just as suitable.
Let me demonstrate – YaHshua could be transliterated as Eeahshoeah, or, Eashua. These are not that accepted letters but the
phonetics is really close to the phonetic lettering of the Name, YaHshua.
I met an
individual once that was translating and transliterating an Aramaic New
Testament into English and his transliteration of the Name of our Savior was
far different from what everyone is arguing over today, but as a phonetic tool,
his transliteration was just as good, making the same sound, the sound the mind
hears and the lips can repeat, but the appearance is not common to most and
Is there a “U” or not? Did the original writings have a “U” in the middle, or not? No one knows for sure, certainly some of the experts, according to the rules for language, made by men, do say YaHshua is not found but YaHushua is. All we have is what the Jewish scholars have put together, the rejecters and those among the populations that deny YaHshua, and YaHushua as Messiah. They are biased in every way when it comes to using the Holy Name of their God in applications toward a Messiah they reject. Our Savior also said He came in His Father’s Name (John 5:43). This is very irritating to most Jews and not acceptable, for most in the numerous Jewish religions, and for most of Messianic Jews too, being satisfied to use the alternate, Yeshua, or Y’shua. Clearly, we can see in the use of Y’shua and Yeshua, one of the phonetic letters for a proper transliteration, has been dropped – the English (transliteration) letter “H”, which is a legitimate part, even a required element of His Holy Name for the purpose of proper pronunciation, and restoring His Name to His Glory. I would like to think those presenting His Name as Y'shua, are indicating a missing letter, leaving it to the reader to supply the missing letter, and that this missing letter, indicated by the ' is not the vowel letter "e" but the "H". This at least leaves room for restoring and correction.
The “U”, in or out is a minor point as it is not a true part of His Name, not really. It is part of the name as seen concerning the son of Nun in the Old Testament where this name is applied to the Joshua, Mose’ lieutenant, the individual that eventually led the people of YHWH into the Promised Land, into the Kingdom of God (at that time). I doubt it is a mistake or a coincident that our Savior and this YaHshua, or Yahushua, have the same name.
A modern example of using YaHushua and how, when applied
in conversation, it comes out -- the Prime Minister of Israel is named
Netanyahu, the last part of his name, yahu, is
identical to the first part of YaHushua (yahu shua). I have heard this name pronounce by the Israeli
new channels as Netan-- yhoo
and yaho and yahuu. Now, try this little exercise -- Say his name
with any of these endings and add "shua", do it rapidly, as if
calling him, NetanYaHushua, or NetanYaHshua. Arguing over the "u" that is
actually pronounced as we would pronounce the "o" is getting us no where. On the one
hand we are told one form does not appear in the modern
Hebrew, but the other does, and the truth of His Name gets lost. The vowels added by external sources,
scholars of language, and by the rules of language are not part of His Name,
they are added features. The
"e" is a modern vowel, as is the "a" when applied to His
Name. These letters are not a legitimate
part of His declared Name. YaHshua was
born and named, YH Shua, or, if you insist, YH o shua, or YaH o Shuah. The term, Yeshua,
as a name, means "Salvation", that is all
but YaHshua, means YaH is Savior. You
could properly use the term, Yeshua like this -- YaH is yeshua. Or you could even ask the question, whose
yeshua is your yeshua? And the answer
would be, YaH, or YaHWeH (YHWH). This is also true of using terms like, god,
or lord -- these are not names, for there are many lords and many gods -- so,
what is the name of your god, or your lord, or your yeshua?
received some information from a reader using a Jewish scholar recognized as
one of the fathers of the the Hebrew language,
Gesenius, and he is telling us what Gesenius has to say –
According to Gesenius, “The Father of Hebrew Grammarians” Yahshua is not grammatically possible. He states that it can only be Yeshua. Yahoshua while still not correct it can be acceptable.
To say the name, YaHshua, is not grammatically possible but on the other hand accepting Yeshua as possible, when applied to our Savior, is outrageous and demonstrates the kind of bias even recognized authorities engage in – this is the position of those pushing for the use of the name “Yeshua” – that YaHshua isn’t possible. Gesenius say, “…it can only be Yeshua…”? Then following this statement, this Father of Hebrew says that “Yahoshua” is not correct either, but it is “acceptable”. Acceptable? What happened to the name, Yah u shua, it is not Yah o shua and "...not correct but can be acceptable", what kind of nonsense is this? Using some simple logic we should look at something that sets the name, Yeshua, from the name, YaHshua.
The first example: The Name (the Shem), YaHshua, has the Original Name embodied within it -- the first part – YaH (YH) -- while the second example, Yeshua, has dropped the “H”, in effect, cutting the Name (the Shem) in half – and we are to say this is permissible?
There is some really good information concerning the Name of God, YHWH, and this revelation passed to Moses, concerning the Creator’s Name, His personal Identity, go to this link -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism
You will see visual images of the evolution of our Creator’s Name and explanations in how the Name (the Shem) was, or has been, handled.
Friends, if you search hard enough and long enough you will find a scholar to support your view, or the view you are looking for. Imagine, the scholars, the Grammarians, do not all agree. Here is an example found in an exchange on a Hebrew languages forum, that makes this point –
This is a question for those that have a solid
foundation in Biblical/Classical Hebrew. I view "solid foundation" as
years of study and proficiency (not necessarily mastery) in translation.
As you know some view this as non-past vs. past (many ancient and some modern grammarians), others imperfect/incomplete vs. perfect/complete (most grammarians in last century), others primary vs. secondary (Schneider, Sailhamer, etc.) with respects to type of speech (narrative or discourse), and others.
How to do you view the function of the prefix (yiqtol) and suffix (qatal) forms? Also when there is a waw/vav prefix attached. I'm primary interested in what conclusions you've come to after translation, not after reading a grammar (which may be the same or different).
Personally I see evidence for any of the approaches with exceptions of course. Honestly I don’t pay much attention when translating between the two for determining tense or aspect, rather letting context dictate either.
(If you want more of this it can be found at this forum --htttp://forums.carm.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-65172.html)
I think you get the point, but if you want more then there is more, lots more. When it is argued the name, YaHshua, is not a proper name and not found in the Torah because it is missing the “u” then I have to ask, what about the “o”? Then another argument starts and what is ignored is that neither of these letters were used in the Paleo Hebrew rendition of our Creator’s Name.
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary:
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.
We should make a not
here concerning the term, Yeshua, as a name. Matthew 1:21 defines His
Name and many use this and Strong's Greek Dictionary to identify the term
Yeshua in this meaning and therefore they wrongly determine this is His Name,
but it is not. It is the definition of His Name. The Strong's tell
us His Name, the Name He is given at birth, actually before birth the Name was
given to Mary to Name Him, and the Dictionary tell us it mean, "he will
save" and this begs the question, "who will save?" Do you
see the problem? They are taking the definition of His Name and making
that the Name, but in truth the "he" is YaH, so you can answer the
question, and the answer is YaHshua will save. There are many
"he's" in the world as there are many lords and gods, so, which one
is your Savior, which on will save you? You say YaHoshua and I say
YaHshua but neither of us will say, Jesus, not any more, right?
We should make a not here concerning the term, Yeshua, as a name. Matthew 1:21 defines His Name and many use this and Strong's Greek Dictionary to identify the term Yeshua in this meaning and therefore they wrongly determine this is His Name, but it is not. It is the definition of His Name. The Strong's tell us His Name, the Name He is given at birth, actually before birth the Name was given to Mary to Name Him, and the Dictionary tell us it mean, "he will save" and this begs the question, "who will save?" Do you see the problem? They are taking the definition of His Name and making that the Name, but in truth the "he" is YaH, so you can answer the question, and the answer is YaHshua will save. There are many "he's" in the world as there are many lords and gods, so, which one is your Savior, which on will save you? You say YaHoshua and I say YaHshua but neither of us will say, Jesus, not any more, right?
Where is the “u”, it looks like an “o” to me, but notice, the Hebrew used is modern Hebrew and there we are, around and around we go. Look at the name, Joshua (pronounced, as YaHshua) is presented in different forms, but why? In the phonetic aid above the "Y" is used but the "J", mispronounced by nearly all English speaking people is retained in the definitions? The “J” in old English is pronounced, phonetically, different from how those speaking American English of today. To correct this we can use letters that produce the correct sounds, available to us today -- to give a better transliteration, and phonetic sound, closer to the original. The English letter, “J”, and “I” both at one time had the same phonetic sound among the northern European nations, and this included England gave these letters a, "yh" (John would be Yawn). The Sothern European nations, the Latin especially, the "I" was and is to this day, the more prominent in use and pronounced as "hey" or "he". In just a few short years after the production of the King James "authorized" Version was produced this was changed, by England, from the "I" to the "J" and the sounds changed again, from Iesvs (He-Zeus) to Jesus (Geez-Us). Most of the world, being under the Latin influence, call our Savior, He-Zeus with some even saying changing the Latin to the Greek pronunciation of the "I" to pronouncing His Name as ISIS -- anything but His true birth name, YaH-shua. Today the best choice in letters, among the English speaking peoples and those that speak English as a second language, to preserve, or return to, the original is the English letter “Y”. Does the name JOSHUA exist in the Old Testament? Certainly it does, in the English translation, and to correct this transliteration from the Hebrew, by the translators of the King James Version Bible, we need to update this transliteration to YaHshua.
Others will still argue the Hebrew Scriptures do not contain this name, YaHshua. So, let’s go to the English translations of the Hebrew text by Hebrew (Jewish) translators, certainly they must know something, certainly they must be considered experts in the Hebrew and the English? First the Masoretic Text and second the Tanakh The Holy Scripture, both produced by the Jewish Publications Society and both recognized by the English speaking Jewish communities as correct. Also, remember, these two versions came after the Father's of modern Hebrew had established what the Hebrew language should be for the Modern Hebrews.
The Masoretic Text
The Holy Scriptures According To The Masoretic Text (Approved version of the Jewish Publications Society of America). Preface, first paragraph: “…According to an ancient rabbinic interpretation, Joshua had the Torah engraved upon the stones of the altar (Joshua viii, 32) not in Hebrew alone, but in all languages of mankind…”. You see the use of the name, Joshua, in the preface of this Jewish translation and also within the text of the Scriptures. This English translation under Jewish Publication Society of America was started in 1892 AD. This English translation is derived from the Masoretic Test --
Wikipedia: The Masoretic text –
Text (MT, ??, or <_x0021_xml:namespace
You will not find any notes within this translation correcting what some chosen scholars say about the name Joshua, or the corrected transliteration, YaHshua, is not possible. Maybe they should tell that to the Jewish Publication Society and their scholars? What a perfect time to correct everyone, within the notes, notes that are added to most translations when they have alternate readings or misunderstood words or phrases. I have written on this in other articles, beginning with --
Tanakh The Holy Scripture
This translation of the Hebrew Scriptures is also a product of the Jewish Publication Society. Preface, first paragraph -- “…made directly from the traditional Hebrew Text into the idiom of modern English” and “… begun in 1955…” and “Bible translation began about 2,200 years ago in the third century C.C.E, as the large Jewish population of Alexandria, Egypt, came under the influence of Hellenism. When the Greek language replaced Hebrew and Aramaic as their vernacular, and the Torah in its Hebrew original was no longer commonly understood, a translation into Greek was made for the Jewish community of Alexandria. This translation came to be known as the Septuagint, Latin for “seventy,” because of the legend that the committee of translators numbered seventy-two, six elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. In the last few centuries B.C.E., the Jews who lived in the north and east of Judea also found the Hebrew Bible difficult to understand, for the spoken language had become largely Aramaic, first of the Torah and then the rest of the Bible, became known as the Targums. The Septuagint and the Targums are not only the oldest translations of the Bible but also the most influential.”
Can you see what is being said here? This is from the Preface of this version of Hebrew Scriptures. All of the translations of the Hebrew Scriptures today are based on the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Targums and these were created 12-1,400 years after Moses wrote down the first words given him by YaHWeH. Notice the admission the language was being lost and at one point replaced by Aramaic, a Semitic language, to be sure, but the original Hebrew was lost, “…no longer commonly understood...”.
Looking in the pages of this translation we find the Book of Joshua with Hebrew characters at the top right of the page for this name, Joshua, and would be read, from the Hebrew as YaHshua. There is not “u”, nor “o” dividing the Name (the Shem) from the declarative, “shua”, meaning Savior. It seems the translators of both these translations saw fit to reproduce the English name, Joshua, as YaHshua in the Hebrew. In the Masoretic Text translation the title to the Book Joshua is accompanied by the Hebrew writing of that Name and it is YaHshua. In both Jewish translations of the Hebrew into English the very first two letters of this name, Joshua, is “YH”, so the Hebrew is restoring the “H” to its rightful place and restoring His Name or the Shem (Name). Another translation that demonstrates and witnesses to the same thing, in correcting the name, Joshua, is The Stone Edition Tanach, which represents this Name, the very same Name given our Savior at birth, in the same way, beginning YH (YaH). This brings up another issue, too – the false idea that His Name, YaH, is a short form for YaHWeH. This is easy to prove when we look at our Savior’s Name, the Name also given to Moses’ Lieutenant, son of Nun, when we look at this shared Name we see YH, in both, meaning this should be correct in the New Testament, but the Christian have been deceived into accepting another name, JESUS, a name that does not contain the name that is found in our Savior’s Name, just like the name, Yeshua, does not contain our Creator’s Name.
Common sense should rule here and not linguistic rules established for the creation of a modern language. Yes, the Hebrew language of today is a created modern language that did not exist beyond 400 years ago. It is the Aramaic and Greek languages from which the Hebrew of today go for reproducing Hebrew Scriptures we have today. They have nothing else and the Hebrew Grammarian scholars are working with those the Septuagint and the Targum in efforts to understand how the Hebrews used and understood their language, but the original language of the Hebrew people is lost. And that is the truth of it. This is why a “pure language” will be returned to the people after YaHshua has returned and established the Kingdom on Earth. HalleluYaH!
Note: If you check out the Masoretic translation and the Tanakh, in English, and compare the Hebrew lettering used for the Old English name, Joshua, you will see it does not agree with what the Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary (quoted from above) has for this same name in the Hebrew. This is because, the Strong’s is following a different set of rules or rules posed by different Hebrew scholars. You can chose Strong’s over the Jewish translators or vice, verse and the only thing we would be arguing over is the letter “u” or “o” and if you think that is important ( the translators don’t) then go that direction, what must remain in tack, and the one single thing that is common to all is the name, YH. Any naming that drops one of these letters is not using His Name. Another approach, if seriously in doubt, the spell His name like this, YaH-Shua, or YaH'shua, both methods are used to indicate a missing letter to be supplied by the reader. When we see His Name as Y'shua we can assume this is what is meant also, not that the "e" is to be supplied, but that the correct "H" is to be supplied by the reader, at least that is what I hope the Messianic Jews using this form mean. Whatever is visually more pleasing to you and I hope you notice, when everyone is speaking His Name the YH comes through and the "u", or the "o", when used, is hardly and issue
I am trying to end this article but things keep coming and need to be said, for the record. So, this short article, in reply to one of my readers has turned into something a bit longer. You will notice I have not used much scripture in this discussion, if you please, because the purpose was to use simple logic as opposed to a lot of quotes, although I could have added many, but we need to use some of our brain power to exercise mining for the truth. Our minds are like shovels digging away, looking for the nuggets of truth as we search His words as opposed to the words of others. For now, let's tolerate a little more of our own wisdom, hopefully guided by His spirit of truth. What follows is a small discussion from another website reasoning their way into favoring the term, Yeshua, over the other, in my opinion, better choices.
The following was taken from -- http://everlastinggoodnewsofyahweh.com/category/messiah/ -- If you would like more of their opinion go there, but first read my rebutal of their final reasoning -- please read this carefully. I will insert my comments and be as brief as possible. Also, remember, I am not against other brothers and sisters of Yahshua, or Yahushua, or Yahoshua, or even those not yet seeing the term, Yeshua, as I do or those others I know that agree with my position. We should all be able to get along without being too defensive and always ready to give way to spiritual sense. We all agree, YaH is our Salvation. The servant of YaHshuaservant.com has been telling anyone that would listen, for years and years, many of the things you will read here, in this following article. It is pleasing to read literature using the same expression and truths we have been expressing for over 20 years, 15 years, or so, on the internet, and over 40 years in the word -- If I can brag it is not in what I know or what we know collectively but in what He has shown us, in and through, and by His Word -- we can only brag in Him. Of ourselves we are the lowly of the world, we are the weak, we are the few, so we do not have much to brag about except Him. Continuing then --
Your servants comment: For good measure the scholars of that day, when translating what was left of the Hebrew Language and the Aramaic scriptures, felt it necessary to put a finishing touch to His Name by adding the "us", essentially, making it their own, moving it away from a Jewish Messiah to a Greek/Roman Messiah -- a messiah that comes really close to the pagan messiah Zeus -- The Zeus, or Ie-Zeus. I know, I know, it is only coincidence -- but...? True, they did not have a transliteration for the Hebrew/Aramaic "sh" but is this an excuse to add a "us"? Not even close. If you look at the Greek you will see the "i" is pronounced as a long "ee" and if you continue with this transliteration, dropping the Hebrew "sh" what do you end up with -- eeua, and when you check the Latin you see, eehua, and we see it written, to this very day as IH, all over Roman religious sites. Sometime it is written, IHS -- we see these characters, many times, above the images they have created of the Christ hanging on the Cross. Again, the YaH (Greek/Latin I H) is up front and is (or was) recognized as the Name of our Lord as well as our Heavenly Father by the earliest Romans and Greeks. The Greeks also, (looking at the Greek Orthodox Church) use this same Name, but pronounce it some other way, just as the Romans mispronounce IHS as "eyesus" or some, "hey-sus" and others "hey-zeus", which is to say "The Zeus". The truth, IH (YH) is staring them in the face. I know to be an absolute fact -- I have been there and seen it written on the walls and above the head of the Crucified Christ images, and statues they kneel before. They are without excuse. Is it really only a coincidence that the new, modern, way of saying His name has become, Hey Zeus in two thirds of the world?
Your servant's comment: Ouch, here is where all of the good research breaks down. Think now -- do you think our Heavenly Father would nick name our Savior as opposed to giving Him a full Name? Well, that is what is being said here, and this article is not the only one of this opinion. Others are using this same, incorrect, reasoning. Using this faulty reasoning for my own name, except I will correct the thinking -- My name is Dan but I was named Danny at my birth. I go by Dan, my nick name, the short form of Danny, the my on my birth certificate, and on all covenants dealing with my most intimate parts of my personal life. Why would it be any different with our Heavenly Father naming His first-fruit? To assume the God of all Gods, the force and power behind everything would decide to causually name His Son with an incomplete name is not good thinking, is it? When the Angel (Messanger) Gabriel delivered the Name of our Savior to Mary (Mariam), and then Joseph, he most certainly would not have used a casual, short form -- remember, it is they, or the Messianics and others that say YaH (YH) is a short form. The idea of a short form, in their opinion -- Yeshua is a short form for YaHshua? Not very short is it? Anyway, I, for one, do not buy this kind of reasoning to excuse my use of a name that leaves out half of the name, a very important half. Read Isa 26:4 and understand that the use of "LORD GOD" is, in the Hebrew, YaH YaHWeH, and a second witness can be found in Isa 12:2 -- but wait -- these two verses deserve to be quoted --
(Isa 26:4) Trust in YAHWEH forever, for in Yah YAHWEH is an everlasting rock.
(Isa 12:2) Behold, El is Y'shua* (My salvation)! I will trust and not be afraid, for my strength and song is Yah YAHWEH; yea, He has become to me Y'shua*. HRB
Since the name Yeshua carries the meaning “he will save” harmonizing with Matthew 1:21 and since the Greek Iesous is a closer transliteration of Yeshua rather thanYehoshua or some other long form, I believe the weight of the evidence points to Yeshua.
Your servant's comment: This is a definition, "he will save" and not a name, not at all. Who will save? Who is the "he"? You find the answer in the name, YaHshua, or YaHushua, but you do not find the answer in the term, used as a name, Yeshua. "He will save" and if we include the first part of the name we have the answer, it is YaH that saves, it s He -- YaHushua will save. Let's not forget, there are many lords and many gods but only one, YaHoshua, YaHushua (both pronounced the same) and YaHshua. This name, YaHshua, includes all of the identifying and the definition of the He and of the Saved, as "he will save" along with His Name. YaHshua, is YaH will save or YaH is Savior, or YaH is salvation. YaH yeshua, is to say, YaH is salvation. By the Hebrew dictionary we see the term, "yeshua" means "salvation", while the term, YaHoshua, means Yah is savior. I know, I know, I am beating the bush and perhaps the dead horse too, but I just can't help it. I want you and anyone else sitting on the fence to see this and not be confused by bad reasoning. The material at this site is very good, except for this one point. Go back to the two verses in Isaiah (IsaYaH) quoted above and you see the real and total answer to this question in the use of Y'shua or Yeshua as opposed to YaHshua or even YaHushua -- there you see all of these forms used and it is clear
Your servant's comments: You have to be kidding me. Please, reader, go back and read Matthew 1:21, remember, the name "jesus" in most translations should read, YaHoshua, according to the Hebrew Dictionary, and this name means, by definition, YaH (he) o shua (saves, salvation, savior). Remember, our Savior said He came in His Father's Name, a name given Him at birth. Why is this so hard to see? Oh, I know, because it has to be YaHshua that reveals this to you -- Hebrews 2:12 and Matthew 11:27 -- to whom He, Yahshua, choses to reveal Him (Our Heavenly Father). If you see it, and understand it then it is not I that has made this known to you, it is Him (the He, YaHshua). I hope He does open you to this knowledge, if not, well maybe later. This in no way limits your access to Him. We cannot all possibly be in the same place at the same time until He comes and restores everything and then we will have no need of teachers, because we will see Him face to face -- HalleluYaH!
Your servant's comment: Incredible, the twisting and the assumptions in this arguement. YaHshua said He came in His Father's Name, but the author of this article says He did not say that? Okay, let us assume, YaHshua meant "authority" and not literally His Name. Then what? It could be anyone's authority, the originator of the "authority" still has to be identified, or understood. If YaHshua meant by His authority only then we must assume the people He was speaking to knew exactly whom He was referring. If they did not then He, YaHshua, is speaking to the wind. If it is a people that did not know of this supreme "authority" then it would behove Him to reveal Him, the authority, that is. No matter how you look at it it is more than just "authority". The verses given to prove the point can be used to prove just the opposite. Check these verses out and then try to make them mean, by authority, and not meaning His Name, for it is by His Name that the "Authority" to do this or that is granted. John 1:12, Proverbs 30:40, Php 2:10-11, John 17:12, Acts 15:14, 1 John 2:12, Rev 13:6, Rev 22:4 and I could go on and on, especially in the Old Testament, where His Name is declared over and over again. Do a little research and you will see this idea, or excuse, in not applying His Name and trying to substitute "authority" only is silly. The last part, about Paul's name demonstrates this bad thinking -- Paul did not mean, "in his name", not he meant "his authority". Is that what Paul said? No it is not, he, Paul, was speaking about NAMES, names to be or not to be baptized in. Names come with "authority" of various power. A father has authority over his family and there are many fathers, or dads and mothers. The term "authority" by itself means nothing unless attached to person giving it. By whose "authority" do you come, and when you answer that question, what do you say? Names carry authority with them, especailly a powerful Name like that of our Creator. You cannot separate His Name from His authority, but you can give His authority to another, to a different god, or lord, but you cannot give His Name to another.
Your servant's comment: I think the author of the website article means to use YaHshua, as opposed to Yeshua in the first three mentions, as that is the arguement put forward by others as well, that the name YaHshua is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but "yeshua" is. Of course 'yeshua is found in scripture, it means "salvation" and is used to mean salvation in various places, but not once as a Name for YaHWeH, and not for YaHoshua, son of Nun, either. They just skip over that part. Yahoshua, Yahushua, and YaHshua are all interchangable, but Yeshua, as a name, is not, because it is not complete as a name. It is the only alternative that cuts out half of the Holy Name of our Creator and Savior. The other choices do not. You do not need to bother with what follows as it is just a bunch of bunk and in no way proves we should be using "yeshua" as a name for our Savior.
Your servant's comment: First, it is an assumption that "Yeshua" is THE Name to use and this discounts the Name used for the other deliverer of the people of God into the promised land, YaHoshua (Joshua) and of the Priest crowned as King as a forrunner of the office our Savior would take, King Priest, YaHoshua (Joshua in the KJV). Please read Zechariah 3:1, 8, "...I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH..." and again, ZecharYaH 6:11 -- you will see the connection is undeniable, and the name, again, is YaHoshua, not "yeshua" and the Name, YaHoshua, belongs to the Branch, which everyone understanding the prophetic word recognizes as the Messiah.
Your servant's comment: No, this is not Hebrew, but Aramaic. How quickly we forget. It was not that long ago the author of the article was telling us that, yeshua, as a name, Yeshua, is Aramaic and not Hebrew. The verse quoted specifically states that our Savior was speaking to Saul (Paul) in Hebrew, not Aramaic and He, YaHshua, called Paul by his Hebrew name, Saul. Of course He did not identify Himself by the pagan name Jesus, that's a given.
Your servant's comment: It is really sad to read through this and find the twisting of the truth becoming so blatant. YaHoshua said in another verse that He came in His Father's Name, YaHshua identified Himself to Paul (Saul), in Hebrew, not Aramaic and then we read in the verses above that the Saints are marked with the Son and the Father's Name -- then the rabbit is pulled out of the hat and we are told "Yeshua" is the Father's Name. YaHWeH, is the Father of Isreal and the Creator of all things, YaH WeH, not Yeweh. YaH shua is the Savior, come in the Father's Name, get it? YaH shua, not Ye shua. Hebrew, YaH o shua, not Ye shua. Once a false premise is accepted it is hard to build the truth on it, but that is what has happened here. This same approach is used by the proponents and defenders of the false name, JESUS, they build around, twisting until they make it all fit to support a name that never existed until around the 14th century or later.
Your servant's comment: This is true, so very true. It is also true that this article from the site link given earlier has done just that, substituted and Aramaic name for His Hebrew Birth Name. I used to think this was alright, but as you have just read, Rev 3:8, and the correct reasoning, but the wrong name, demonstrates wrong we can be when we are so right -- or think we are. We do grieve the Holy Spirit when we just will not see the truth, but dance all around it in favor of a bias we have accepted for some unknown reason. It is either, unknown, or on purpose and if it is on purpose, well, I will not say more.
Peace to you in His Name and the Name of His Father, YH
ON Second Thought -- Which Savior is your Savior?
JESUS: Marduk: ZUES:
Now consider this Propetic statement about our Savior and His Appearance in the Flesh:
(Isa 53:2) He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Next, as the Beast Government rises, there will be an image brought to life and speaking to us -- or something like that, maybe? Have a look at this link. When this documentry was presented on ABC, they actually had this image speaking and walking around as the resurrect YaHshua meeting with His disciples. Have a look at this preview at the following link and thenread Revelation 13
(Rev 13:15) And was given to it to put life into the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak, and might cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
This is interesting stuff and there is a lot more to this "image" of the Beast, but still with just this little bit of information this is pretty scary stuff. They are making an image of the Shroud and creating what appears as a living, speaking individual. Maybe not the actual Beast image but a precursor to the real thing, maybe?
YaHshua servant Home Page