YaHshua or YaHushua
His Name
YaHshua, or YaHushua, or YeHoshua?
Yeshua, or Y’shua or Yahusha ?
2014 - update 2020 - update 2024: The updates are not extensive and nothing has been changed or dropped from the original article -- the Truth is the Truth -- all we are doing with the updates is taking notice of new or maybe, not so new developments. The newer developments have been added, again, not extensively, and you might have questions beyond what is answered here, but simple internet searches about the Birth Name of our Savior, and about the God of Israel, will cover more than you may wish for. Information, information, and more information, some good and some not so good. Just in these last couple of decades (decades? 10 to 20 years?) information has expanded beyond number -- unlike when I began the reeducation of myself about the Identity of our Creator God (beginning back in the 60s) -- my first discovery, way back in 1967, was that the God of Israel, actually had a Name, this then, led to other things. i mention all of that to make the the point that i do not need some expert, or other authority to inform me about how this IDENTITY MOVEMENT that we see all over the internet is, relative to the generation (40 + years) before, when many of you reading this today, were not born yet. From these last couple of generations of young people, experts in His Name are springing up in every corner, or digital room, around the world. Not until the internet and personal computers, followed by the cell phones has this knowledge exploded, virtually leaving me and my brother and a few others in the "proverbial", digital dust. And, sadly, bringing something our Lord said so long ago, something that has more meaning today than ever, a true prophetic fulfilment, or warning for anyone to see --
Mat 24:5 For many will come in My Name, saying, `I am the Messiah!' and they will lead many astray.
How would an enemy of the God of Heaven, first try to subvert the path to Salvation? Simple, destroy, or replace the one thing that needs no interpretation, the one thing that says what it says -- It happened back in the first century and it is happening again -- again, it is happening, His Name is being declared and many are using this information to lead many astray. And with good reason both good reason and bad reason. Here is the simplest of Truth, no interpretation needed --
Paul says:
Rom 10:13 - "Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32 - Acts 2:21
Peter says:
Act 2:21 - It will be, that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.
And:
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Peter quoting from the OT - Joel 2:32)
YaHshua said:
O righteous Father, the world has not known You: but I have known You, and these have known that You have sent me. 26 And I have declared unto them Your Name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:25-26)Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Mat 7:21- 23)
This would be what the enemy would want to destroy, or, at the least, replace and we are all witnesses to the success this enemy has enjoy over these past centuries. When this does not work, the enemy would then resort to the age old method of deception and denial. The Christian communities readily accept a name that never existed until around 400 years ago, developing in popularity after the publication of the King James Bible. Of course, a replacement would have to be developed, and the enemy wasted no time in doing just that. The names passing down from the first century after our Lord's Crucifixion, are nothing like our Lord's Birth Name -- YaHshua, or as some prefer, YaHushua. This seemed to be settle in this last generation, at least for those not blind to how the Christian communities have been lied to and remain in a state of doziness, even voluntary blindness. But, apparently, after all of the sorting, and searching and questioning, and challenging, the enemy has again crept in --
A Late update for 2024:
There are a couple of new (last decade) variations on our Savior's Name . Not something I would disagree with, concerning His Name in the Old Testament writings. That would be YHWH, as YaHWeH, to YHUH, tranliteraed as YaHuah (YaHUUaH - the double U restored) . This would explain something I have questioned many times concerning the W (double V?), called a Double U (UU, uu). The meaning does not change, so I am good with it, mostly because it answers that question about why in the Hebrew side of things, it is admitted that the name JOSHUA, in the Old Covenant (Testament) is transliterated as, YeHoshua -- the "o" letter seems to be a close sound to the "double u", in pronunciation -- definitely not a "double v".
But, riding along with this move toward something that may be more correct, we come to our Savior's Birth Name, the Name directing us to our Savior, our Salvation -- it is here a great error surfaces -- a new version of our Lord's Birth Name, highlighting the second part of our Lord's Name. This new spelling is slight, but creates something quite different, a very crafty move. We see how our Lord's Name is changed -- YaHusha -- not YaHushua -- what a difference a letter makes. It does not seem so bad, right? As it turns out, the last part of this newly introduced version, Usha, is a name on its own, and this "name" refers to a Hindu Goddess of India, USHA. Strange how the Devil works -- so crafty. Allowing for a truthful revelation, and then twist that reveal into a deception. Ushua, is a name on its own, while "u shua" is a statement -- is salvation, or is savior, The u letter is used for transliteration purposes and should stay with the first part of His Name, as in -- YaHu -- we find this in many other Hebrew/Jewish names. For me, the solution is to drop the "u" letter, as it is not really a representation of the "double u", and this dropping of the "u", in our Lord's Name, does not change anything, it is His Birth Name, named after His Heavenly Father, followed by the statement about who, and what He, our Lord is. Also, it has been pointed out by others uncovering this deception, that this version, Yahusha, is relatively new, and not found
In the bogus name, JESUS, we find ISIS, and I have personally witnessed in my hearing this very name said over the altars of the Roman Temples in Italy. ISIS is an Egyptian "goddess". Now, we have this newly generated, Yah usha -- USHA -- another female goddess -- Another insult to our Savior and His likeness. While among angels, there is neither male nor female, the likeness of our Heavenly Father is that of a Male, not a female -- and, of course, we know this as He sent His Son, first to Israel, and then to us, as a Male, in His Image, or likeness. Does it matter? It seems that it does, our Father in Heaven having gone to such lengths to paint a picture of Himself in the "male" form, and telling us that He also made Adam in their Image, or likeness. A Man, made from clay, in the form, the shape of his maker. Only later was a female form fashioned, and that after Adam, the principle form being that of our Heavenly Father and His Word, the One who became the God of Israel, and later our Savior in the flesh. No one has ever suggested that our Savior was a woman, at least no one in their right minds, and yet, we have pictures presenting our Lord in very effeminate poses with long wavy hair and a face covered in makeup, with and overall appearance being very delicate, and now -- names that are connected to female deities, like ISIS, and Usha, adding these to the name replacements game as Satan, you know, the Devil, seems to continue in making fools out of most of humanity.
Remember, our Lord's name is in two parts, first the Name, YaH, then the second part describing what YaH is doing or has done: YaH shua, however, some say, YaHu shua -- but notice, the "u" letter should never be married to the last part, shua -- as in "Ushua", or "usha" -- not ever. The U letter is problematic for some and is dropped as a preference, and for ease of saying -- from YaHushua, to YaHshua, both say the same thing. This dropping of the U letter does not change anything of significance, by definition the "u" is to be attached to the end of YaH, as in YaHu, if at all, bridging the second part -- "shua", which is to say, YaH is salvation, or YaH is savior, or saving. But some have come up with Usha or Ushas, which changes the remark of Savior or salvation into Usha, an actual name of the Goddess of Dawn, a female deity of India. If we take this a step further, we have Shua, not as a name but a definition, while Usha, is the name of an Indian goddess. This later form, then, to repeat, is saying that our Creator is this India goddess Usha. This, is a provable fact, and in my opinion this version, as a name, should be avoided, just as we would avoid calling our Savior, ISIS, or Jesus, or any other name than that given to him at His Birth, and remember, His Hebrew Name was delivered to Mary and Joseph by an Angel, and Angel who made himself known, even by name, identifying as the same Messenger that spoke with Daniel the Prophet -- Dan 8:16 & Luke 1:19.
A greater evil, at this point, is found in the name, Jesus. A name that has become so bored into centuries of Christian istory and Communities -- even allowing for this name in many parts of the world to be pronounced as, HeyZeus -- The Zeus -- a Greek god, also known as the Healer. Aside from the Greek influence, we have the Latin, language of the Romans, becoming the dominate, religious language of the Western nations of Europe, and from this comes a pronunciation that sounds very much like Isis, or Isous, but in speech is hard to differentiate. Now we have two female inferences, ISIS, and USHA. Incredible, I know -- but true. To make His Name, her name, by moving the U into the lead, is to say that our Heavenly Father is ... well, something I will not say aloud, but it should be clear, our Heavenly Father has a Name, a Name our Lord said He came in, and had "declared" (John 5:43 & John 17:26), a particular Name that we "MUST" confess (Acts 12:4 "... no other name UNDER Heaven, by which we MUST be SAVED"). There is no doubt, Father and Son, does not mean "mother and daughter"... simple as that -- Adam in the image of our Creator, and Eve in the image of man -- even so, we see an opposite trend around the world, where even the male figure gods, are presented in Transgender fashion, very effeminate in appearance, along with the female goddesses. I will say it again, "Men are in the image of the Creator, while the woman is in the image of the man". Certainly different, but alike in appearance, and if we are to consider what our Creator thinks about this, all we have to do it read what He told the people of Israel. Men of the flesh are but an image of what is imagined, not the actual representation, just as it is with man and woman -- possessing all of the same likenesses, but not truly identical, not any more than a marble statue, carved into the shape of a man or woman is anymore the actual, through and through image, or actual, operational object of its creator. This is something we all know, don't we? Isn't this common sense? Men and woman are alike, but not the same, and so much more between God, our Creator, and man himself -- us.
And why the U letter, anyway? When, those teaching Biblical Hebrew tell us that this middle letter, bridging His Name, to an identity, is "o" and not "u", as in, YeHoshua -- the visual form those teachers prefer? Remember, we are looking at "letters" that are a transliteration, of or from the Hebrew letters, and usually fewer in number -- letters, in the process of translation and transliteration get added as aides in pronunciation from one language to another, but these transliterations, are not supposed to change the word, most of all, not the names -- imagine the chaos if that were allowed? And yet, that is what has happened in the Christian communities, top to bottom, and now, again, as some attempt to restore His rightful Name, such as myself, we find another spirit at work, attempting to misdirect even these and other valiant efforts.
We do find Yahushua becoming evermore popular, exchanging the "e" for the "a" and the "o" for the "u" -- Why? The latest new thing, or ,maybe not so new, but then, all of this is new to most of those coming into the Christian faith, when it shouldn't be -- so, who is at fault? A fact about the use of this new manipulation, using the form, USHA, is that it is new, it is a pronunciation that materialized about a decade ago, and if handled improperly could be a blaspheme of His Holy Name, of His Person. This is a name type that i would avoid. And I advise you do the same. The other choices, in the English? There really are but two choices that have proven and can be proven most accurate, and these would be -- YaHu Shua, and better, YaH Shua, a modern spelling. Disagree? Not sure? Want to know? Read on --
_________________________
There is so much arguing going on concerning how to say His Name or how it should, or should not be used, or how it should 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, with most quoting the other as a proof. If, however, you attempt to trail backward, going to one source after another, back in time, you begin to see that their "just saying it" or "repeating it", does not make it so. A quick example: They say, Jesus is Greek for His name ... an equivalent for the Hebrew, Joshua" -- all a lie -- a pure and simple lie that the whole of the world has accepted. Now, having moved even closer to the RETURN, and the horrors coming before that great event, name alternatives are being trotted out by ever excitable spirit (demon and otherwise) having access to free forums, using and abusing the Identity of our Savior, and treading (now) on possible blaspheme of our Holy Father's Name. Tik Tok, is a prime example of a "Hellter Skellter, kind of madness, self-imposed righteousness. Want to know where this leads? Read Revelation 3:14-22 -- READ IT!!! The Rush is on, Matthew 7:13-14.
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
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. One way to look at this is to see how the transliteration reproduces a sound from one language to another, while the final translation, supplies the meaning, or definition for what is heard in the transliteration. Some scholars, not many, but some, have trouble with this. With this being understood we can disregard such statements from favorite scholars, ancient and modern, that tell us a certain form 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 remain, and few of those. 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, even before our Savior confirmed the accuracy of the words handed down, and preserved by the Hebrew/Jews. 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, it is the Old Testament we are talking about, we see the accuracy to be near letter for letter. This discovery, in these modern times, has shut the mouths of the critics. You have to go back, perhaps before you were born, but only a few decades, to see how the critics of the Word have fallen. And yet, new critics rise, and new wolves, and pups rise, exploiting the open forums that modern media has supplied, by way of the Internet, the computer, and now, most of all, the Cell Phones. Wolves in the Churches -- their pups online. Study to show yourself approved, and not fooled -- 2 Timothy 2:15.
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.
[Jerome's Chronicon (4th century) gives 1592 for the birth of Moses, the 17th-century Ussher chronology calculates 1619 BC (Annals of the World, 1658)]
In the Scriptures we have today the Name of our Savior, in the form, YaHshua, is not found specifically in that spelling, as presented by those transliterating from the Hebrew to English. YaHushua (with the u) 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 -- this under the idea of paying honor, or respect to Him. Sometimes their intentions are honorable. They understand what the name of the God of Israel is, and by the Commandments of the Covenant, to avoid misuse of His HOly Name and not wanting the Gentiles corrupting this holy Name -- it pleases them to mislead, or misdirect, anyone wanting to use the Name (the Shem, that is, The Name) and this includes Jews of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox sects too. They do the very thing that they are told not to do, in an effort to keep His Name "more" holy than possible, by hiding it, even replacing it. This argument against the use of His Holy Name then becomes problematic when it comes to our Lord's Birth Name. An individual given the Name of YaHshua, or YaHushua, at birth -- a name found among the people of that first century, and before. This hiding of His Name or exchanging for a title is, historically new. Our Savior, YaHshua, carries the Name of the Heavenly Father and the Name of the God of Israel, and His Name that He was named can be dated all the way back to Moses and before -- Joshua (YaHshua) led the people of Israel into the Promised Land, into the Kingdom of God -- notice what is implied by this Name?
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 -- a Name too holy to say. This is a form of self-righteousness run a muck. What does He say, the One who is owner of the origin of that Name?
John 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy Name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou have loved Me may be in them, and I in them.Psa 22:22 I will declare Your Name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you.Psa 18:49 Therefore I will praise you among the nations, O YHWH; I will sing praises to Your Name.Psa 138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your Name for Your loving kindness and for Your truth: for you have magnified Your word above all Your Name.Heb 2:11-12 For both he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare Your Name unto My brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto YouRev 19:1 After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "halleluYah! Salvation, power, and glory belong to our God (El):Rev 19:2 for true and righteous are his judgements. For he has judged the great prostitute, who corrupted the earth with her sexual immorality, and he has avenged the blood of his servants at her hand."Rev 19:3 A second said, "halleluYah! Her smoke goes up forever and ever."Rev 19:4 The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped the FATHER who sits on the throne, saying, "Amen! halleluYah!"
There it is -- His Name is found in the New Covenant -- halleluYaH is to say, Praise you YaH
When someone quotes a Jewish authority saying this letter or that letter does not apply, they are talking about letters, characters, images that represent 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 the accepted letters, of course, but as a similar sounding out, phonetics, that is -- the sound made to hear with ear or the mind's eye, not some other sound but a same or very similar sound for the original, then being represented in letters to reproduce, on page, or stone, something that is close to the sound of the actual word, or in this case, THE Name of our Savior, YaHshua. I do not mean to belabor this, going to such lengths, but it does seem that this is ignored, over and over again -- the letters or characters used are not HOLY, it is what is being said, what is heard and registered in the mind, in the intellect, in one'w own spirit. One thing is certain, the name JESUS is not even close, it is no where near any transliteration of His Birth Name. Either those who should know better are ignorant about how the use of letters to produce a sound that is heard in the ear, or the mind's ear, as they say, or those in the know are ignorant to this -- of course they know, but in their own reasoning have gotten lost, how else can it be explained? It is either on purpose to misdirect or done in ignorance, and if not that, it has to be on purpose -- the wolves are not only found among the the church (ecclesia), but among scholars too, you know, those educated above the norm -- yes, wolves devouring the lambs. For this reason it is up to you, the reader, to educate yourself and to be guided by the Spirit -- Study for Approval -- Rightly dividing the Word of Truth -- 2 Timothy 2:15.
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, in appearance, 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 seems strange -- Eeahshuah. To put this phonetic sound into what others are saying is found in the Old Testament for JOSHUA, it would have to go like this -- Eeah u shuah, without the spaces, it is just easier to see. Remember, in the English, the W is a Double U, so -- Eeah w shuah. See how it starts getting twisted up? Again, Eeah uu shua? One thing is certain, all of these things considered, the name JESUS is way off the mark, not even close, and not a name used by anyone in the First Century. During that time most did not argue over the Name, why? Because they all knew that His Name, found among men, as in the OT, Joshua (YeHoshua, or, YaHshua), and given to Mary and Joseph to name Him, is the Name without argument, being change only later, becoming JESUS (Geezus, or Hezeus -- two variation on that name), a complete replacement for our Savior's saving Name --
Rom 10:12-13 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on Him, for, "Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32 - Acts 2:21; 4:12 - Pro 18:10 - Ps 20:1
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, those in the populations of religion that deny YaHshua, and or, 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), and would be rejected for "another" -- we see, we witness that very thing today.
Saying 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 -- but, wait, try telling a Christian this, that the name they worship is made up, is fake, and never existed until about 400 years ago. The Jews or any Israeli that knows this truth will never challenge or say to a Christian that they are calling on the wrong name or god, and for good reason -- at present the Jewish nations and religion has favor among the Christians, and to call out those using the bogus name, JESUS could lead to another great, antisemitic wave of anger and hate. One group might shake a mental fist in your face but the other would cast you out, and in the right moment of history, kill you -- as history proves. Both Jew and Gentile has gone to the burning stake for refusing to accept a god, by name, in confession, or essentially refusing to accept the false over the true.
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 (expressing the English sound for the Hebrew original), even a required element of His Holy Name for the purpose of proper pronunciation, and restoring His Name to His Glory, a Name that expresses His Glory and that of the Father. 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.
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?
Recently I 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 – an accepted Jewish authority.
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".
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.
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.
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary:H3091yeho^shu^a? yeho^shu^a?yeh-ho-shoo'-ah, yeh-ho-shoo'-ahFrom H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.
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 Southern 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 Word 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 first compiled in 1892 AD. This English translation is from the Masoretic Text --
The Masoretic Text ... is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired. In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.
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, scribal 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 --
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? That quote came from the Preface of the Tanakh. Most, if not all, translations of the Hebrew Scriptures today are based on the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Targums and these were created 1,200-1,400 years after Moses wrote down the first words given him by YaHWeH -- nothing original about them. Notice the admission that 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...”.
Isayah 12:2 Behold,H2009 GodH410 is my salvation;H3444 I will trust,H982 and notH3808 be afraid:H6342 forH3588 the LORDH3050 JEHOVAHH3068 is my strengthH5797 and my song;H2176 he also is becomeH1961 my salvation.H3444
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: H3444 = salvationOriginal: ישׁוּעה- Transliteration: Y@shuw`ah
- Phonetic: yesh-oo'-aw (presented by many as, "yeshua")
Isayah 12:3 Therefore with joy shall you draw water out of the wells of salvation.Isayah 12:4 And in that day shall you say, Praise the YHWH, call upon His Name, declare His doings among the people, make mention that His Name is exalted. (LORD, in all caps, is used to replace His Holy Name -- think about it -- YHWH, not LORD)
It seems the translators of these translations, all containing the book of JOSHUA, saw fit to reproduce the English name, Joshua, a name further corrected into modern English as, YaHshua, a representation of His Name found in the Hebrew Bible -- this name, JOSHUA, or YaHshua, or YaHoshua -- .
Hebrew Dictionary:Transliteration: Y@howshuwa`- Phonetic: yeh-ho-shoo'-ah- Definition: Joshua or Jehoshua (see how the Phonetic says this? The change in the J letter?)
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 (the Name). Another translation that demonstrates, witnessing 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 the name of the God of Israel with, YH (YaH), just as we find in the name, YaHshua, or YaHoshua. This brings up another issue, too – the false idea that His Name, YaH, is a short form for YaHWeH. This is easy to prove, or disprove, when we look at our Savior’s Name, the Name also given to Moses’ Lieutenant, son of Nun, JOSHUA, when we look at this shared Name we see YH, in both. Seeing this we would be correct in restoring His Birth Name, YaHshua, or at the very least, JOSHUA, to the New Testament, but the Christians 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 other name, Yeshua, does not contain our Creator’s Name either.
Zephanyah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of the YaHWeH, to serve Him with one consent.
If you check out the Masoretic translation and the Tanakh version, 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 presented for this same name -- Jehovah, as opposed to YaHWeH, or Joshua for Yehoshua, or YaHshua. This is because, the Strong’s is following a different set of rules -- rules posed by different Hebrew scholars. The difference, or the argument revolves around the use of the letter “u” or “o”, and if you think that is important ( some 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 (pronounced, YaH). Any naming that drops one of these letters, the "H", in most cases, is not using His Name, and opening up a lot of misdirection, eventually leading to bogus names, and excuses for using names not related to our Creator, our Savior.
Another approach, is that some translations, and authors, will spell His name like this, YaH-Shua, YaH'shua, or Y'shua, both methods (dash or hyphen) are used to indicate a missing letter, a letter to be supplied by the reader. When we see His Name as Y'shua we can assume this is what is meant, not that the "e" is to be supplied, but that the correct "H" is to be supplied by the reader, not forgetting that the "e" or the "a" we see used, as in YeH or YaH, are vowels and never part of th original Name, only to be used as aid in pronouncing the YH, at least that is what I hope the Messianic Jews using this form mean -- however, as with many religions, the practitioners, that is the lay-members most often just follow along. Whatever is visually more pleasing to you and I hope you notice, when speaking His Name that the YH comes through and the "u", or the "o", when used, is hardly an issue in the spoken word. Remember, it is the transliteration we are looking for -- how it is said, how it is spoken -- the writing of letter are only an effort to represent what we speak, and what we hear, and that is the spirit of the Word -- John 6:63 -- The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life..
______________________________________________________________
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 rebuttal 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. This servant of has been telling anyone that would listen, for the last 4 decades, many of the things you will and have read here. It is pleasing to read literature using the same expression and truths we have been expressing for over 20 years on the internet. 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 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 --
The Messiah’s Name?
It is NOT JESUS, and yet, we find it in modern bibles, first starting with the King James translation. Do no forget that the King James Bible is just that, A King James, Authorized Bible -- Authorized, meaning the King had "authorized" its printing. Not forgetting that the at this new beginning for the English Bible, the Geneva Bible was in popular use and was not banned, but eventually lost out to the KJV Bible. Still, a government authorized bible, or approved bible, with the King's stamp of approval. Imagine a US President paying some men at one of the Universities to print up a Bible that only his administration would authorized to be read at the churches, and paid for by the tax paying public?
We find the bogus name of nearly all modern translation, first revealed in the New Testament of the King James version, in Matthew's gospel, and even then, this is a revision from the 1611, approved version that presented the name as IESVS.
Matthew 1:21 - “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” KJV
The KJV of today, says the Savior’s name is JESUS (as well as nearly every other modern translation), however, it is the Greek from which the King James New Testament Version that is supposed to have been translated from -- that is what they all say. But, wait -- there is no letter “J” in Hebrew or Greek, nor was there a “J” in the English language prior to the 15th century. The original 1611 KJV records his name as Iesvs . That is because the letter “J” had not yet come into regular use, it was originally an English representation for the small letter "i" -- it is from the "i" letter, that Greek/Latin to the English, small letter "j" -- the "i" letter with a tail. It was only recently reinvented to become a consonant, around the time of the writing of the King James Bible, but even then, in the very first translation, into a first complete book, the name, IESVS, from the Latin was used, only later to be changed to the English version of JESUS, and this name, neither Greek nor Latin, and certainly not Hebrew or Jewish, became the bogus name, followed by nearly all other English printings through out the whole Earth.
His Name was CHANGED, first from the incorrect Latin/Greek claims, by changing the pronunciation of the first letter, making what you hear phonetically, in your ear, as - JESUS -- not even close to His Birth Name, YaHshua. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Savior’s true name. It is a man-made name that has existed for only a few hundred years. From Iesvs, to Iesus, is an attempt to transliterate the name as it appears in the Greek text (Ἰησοῦς – pronounced “ee-ay-soos”), another error. The Greeks attempted to transliterate the name from Hebrew, but fell short as we will see shortly. See this quote from the Thayer's Greek Word Definitions:
Greek Original: Ἰησοῦς- Transliteration: Iesous- Phonetic: ee-ay-sooce'
We can see from this accepted authority how His Name, the Name He was given at birth, the name by which, or under which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), became twisted, beginning with the Greeks. What did it originally sound like? Read the Phonetic -- ee-ay-sooce -- even that pronunciation is strange to the version handed out to the lay members yesterday and today, nothing even close to the Geezus (Jesus), spoken today -- Eeaysooce? That's the Greek for you.
Apparently the Greeks were not comfortable with a Jewish Messiah, and like many other peoples, liked to make things their own by renaming, or reshaping names to suit themselves, and the same with the Latins, so to the Romans did the same, corrupting even replacing His Name with inferior names, with other names -- the Latin, Iesvs, coming the closer tosounding like ISIS, in their vocalizing, or pronunciation. This ISEVS, from the Latin, that is the Roman Church, was changed by the English revision of the KJV.
Take a look at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, and see proof that our Savior had the same name as the soldier Joshua, the son of Nun, recognized as the right hand to Moses, the one that led the chosen people into the Holy Land, into the Kingdom of God -- it would not be a mistake to say that this JOSHUA, of the OT, was a TYPE of Messiah. One thing is certain, this leader of Israel, had the same Name as our Savior. But, there is a problem with the Modern translations. Those two New Testament verses say Jesus, when they should have said Joshua, as the marginal notes in most Study Bibles, point out. Joshua, in the Masoretic, Hebrew text, is Yehoshua (Numbers 11:28) or the shorter form Yeshua (Nehemiah 8:17). Both names, Jesus and “Joshua,” are written Ιησους in Greek Septuagint. Both Hebrew forms, Yehoshua and Yeshua, contain “shua” in them, however, there is no “sh” sound in Greek. Therefore, the names Yehoshua and Yeshua could not be transliterated exactly. Additionally, the Greek terminal ending “υs” was added which is common for many Greek names such as Timotheus, Silvanus, Andronicus, Aristobulus, Narcissus, Rufus , Asyncritus, Philologus, Nereus, and many others. Thus, with no “sh” sound and a “υc", becoming the "us" ending, we get Ιησους in Greek, leading, first to the Latin, Iesvs, and later the English, Jesus. You can see the transformation beginning soon after the first century. Our Lord does not have a Greek Name, nor a Roman Name. Our Lord was named by and angelic messenger, to our Savior a Name from His Father, a Name found among the Hebrews -- this has become lost
The Latin being pronounced completely different from how the English would pronounce this "changed" name, changing it even more. Considering, again, Acts 4:12, this is a terrible mistake, a mistake the scholars in Biblical languages should know. It is hard to believe that they do not, and are ignorant about this. And that too is hard to believe. The other possibility, is that this change, this complete change in His Name, a Name given to Him at birth by His Heavenly Father, was changed on purpose and is supported by those who are supposed to know better -- it would then be on purpose, a deliberate, and continuing act of deception. I know, I know, unbelievable. Believe it.
Continuing that thought -- Important or not?
There came a development that is disturbing for many, myself included, and that is the development of our Lord's Birth Name away from Him to "another" (John 5:43 & 2 Cor 11:4). This direct, seemingly indirect connection, as you will see, to "another", will become plain. And while there is no direct, or deliberate evidence, the words do speak for themselves -- as if some force behind the scenes is shaping, even orchestrating a movement away from His Holy Birth Name, the only Name by which we must be save, the only name we must confess and bow to. As you will see, there is a false messiah that comes really close, and whose name seems to associate with the modern name, Jesus -- 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, and this is not bad for a transliteration, sort of close, still not quite. 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, and pronounced as "ee-ua", not written that way, but pronounced that way. 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, eventually, "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. And I was present as Roman congregations gathered in stony Church buildings, in basement archives of the dead and sang songs to YaHshua, YaHshua, Come YaHshua, but to whom do, and did the Priests pray to? ISIS, that is what the ear heard, and this, seemingly from, ISEVS, abandoning what is before their very eyes. They are without excuse. Is it really only a coincidence that the new, modern, way of saying His name has become, Hey Zeus in at least a third of the world? The English is pronounced as GeezUS, written as JesUS, a totally fabricated name. And we need not guess who is behind this kind of deception.
BACK TO THE Quoted ARTICLE:
Matthew 1:21 also tells us the meaning of the name; “… for he shall save his people from their sins”. According to Strong’s Concordance, Jeshua means “he will save”.
Some people use one of the following variations; Yahushua, Yahoshua, or Yeshua as I once did. The problem with Yeshua is that the “he” and the “waw” (underlined) in the long form of the Hebrew name YHWH are not pronounced. However, according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, the “he” must be pronounced. Here is what Gesenius, “The Father of Hebrew Grammarians”, says about the Hebrew letter “he”;
The first underlined section is most important. The “he” in the middle of a word never loses its consonant value. The only exceptions to this are listed in the footnote, but Gesenius, states that these two exceptions are only “apparent” exceptions.
This is problematic for a few reasons. First, the “he” is totally silent. Second, the “waw” is totally silent. This pronunciation could be spelled much simpler as: But, as you can see, this doesn’t resemble Messiah’s, or the son of Nun’s name at all.
Yahoshua and Yahushua would be more correct as far as grammar is concerned, but both of those variations assume the Savior’s name must begin with “Yah”. One cannot possibly know that for sure. It is quite possible the Almighty gave His Son the shorter variation of the name, Yeshua. I was born with the name John. A longer form exists,Jonathan, but that is not my name. To assume Messiah had the longer form as his name is just conjecture.
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 causally name His Son with an incomplete name is not good thinking, is it? When the Angel (Messenger) 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 Messianic 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
Matthew 1:21 does not say, “Yahweh shall save …”, but “he shall save …” (“he” referring to the antecedent Jesus / Yeshua, not to Yahweh). Many have claimed the name means “Yahweh is salvation” or “Yahweh saves”, but that is not what the verse says.
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, chose 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!
It is mistakenly believed that John 5:43 teaches us that the Father’s name (Yahweh or Yah) must be part of the Son’s name. It reads, “ I am come in my Father’s name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” “In my Father’s name” means, “In my Father’s authority” and “in his own name” means, “by his own authority”. Consider the following verses:
Jeremiah 14:14-15 – Then Yahweh said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of naught, and the deceit of their heart. Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.
The prophets of Jeremiah 14 were saying they were sent by Yahweh and were prophesying by His authority, but they were lying.
John 10:25 – Yeshua answered them, I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
Yeshua did those works by his Father’s authority because Yahweh gave him all authority (Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:20-22).
1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Messiah divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
This does not mean the baptized person was given the name “Paul”. It is asking if the Corinthians in question were baptized by Paul’s authority.
Your servant's comment: Incredible, the twisting and the assumptions in this argument. 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, especially 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.
Some would say Yeshua is not a Hebrew name, but Aramaic and a corruption of the true name Yeshua. Actually, based on the rules of Hebrew grammar, it is the name Yeshua that is “corrupted” and impossible. This form of the name is not found in Scripture whereas Yeshua is. In fact, the name Yeshua existed long before the Messiah was born. Yeshua is simply the contracted form of either Yahoshua, Yahushua, Yehoshua, or Yehushua.
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 argument 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 interchangeable, 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.
The textual evidence we have for NT documents, however, never record Messiah’s name in the long form:
1. Aramaic - , Yeshu’a, early 5th century
2. Greek – Ιησους, Iaysoos, Iesous, 4th century
3. Hebrew –, Yeshua, 14th century (probably copied from a much earlier version, also notice the “H” in the Hebrew, but missing in the English)
4. Latin Vulgate - Iesus, late 4th century directly from Hebrew
The importance of Messiah’s name
Philippians 2:9-11 – Wherefore Yahweh also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Yeshua every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Yeshua Messiah is Master, to the glory of Yahweh the Father.”
These verses stress the importance of the Messiah’s specific name. Eventually, every knee will bow to a Messiah named Yeshua.
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 forerunner 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.
Acts 26:14 - “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”
The Savior spoke these words to Saul in Hebrew. He then went on to say, “I am Yeshua who you persecute.” All English Bibles say Jesus instead of Yeshua which is the correct name in Hebrew. Certainly, the Savior did not say Jesus since that name was not invented until 1500 years later.
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.
Revelation 7:3,4 shows 144,000 end-time saints being sealed on their foreheads before Yahweh’s wrath is poured out on the earth and its inhabitants. Revelation 9:4 gives us the reason for this sealing; it is to protect Yahweh’s people from receiving His wrath. We again see 144,000 saints in Revelation 14:1. It is here that we find out what the seal is that was placed on their foreheads. The KJV reads; ”And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.”
The Greek reads, “having his name and his Father’s name…” as does the NIV. This teaches us the importance of knowing and using the names of Yahweh and Yeshua in these final days. Yahweh Himself has begun the restoration of these names for a specific purpose. If the seal on the forehead is symbolic of knowing and using the names, it would be very dangerous to reject that knowledge in favor of continuing to use man-made names like Jesus, Jehovah, and LORD.
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.
Revelation 3:8 - “I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.”
What does it mean to deny “my name?” One meaning is to deny the Savior himself. Another meaning is to learn his true name and then reject it for a substitute name. Whenever we reject the light of truth we grieve the Holy Spirit. So let us “walk in the light as he is in the light.”
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.
I do hope that that was not too hard to follow. I believe, that I have given you and other believers something to think about and some fuel for further research. Peace to you in His Name and the Name of His Father, YH
______________________________
ON Second Thought -- Which Savior is your Savior?
JESUS: Marduk: Zeus:
Now consider this Prophetic statement about our Savior and His Appearance in the Flesh:
What? His physical appearance would be unattractive? Hey, this is what the Word reveals. No matter how beautiful, in the flesh, men and women make him out to be, he was not. In His physical form, he was neither handsome nor beautiful of 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 documentary 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 then read 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. They are making an image of the Shroud of Turin and creating what appears as a living, speaking individual. Maybe not the actual Beast image but a precursor to the real thing, maybe?
Email comments to: dan@servantsofyahshua.com