Who in the World Is Yahshua? By lofradio May 6, 2010 / 120 Comments Tweet https://thelineoffire.org/shows/line_of_fire_05_06_10_hr1.mp3 Dr. Brown’s Book That Answers These Questions and More Article on the Name Yeshua/Jesus Article on the Name Yahweh
Yes, Yeshua and “salvation” in Hebrew have a common root, namely the root for salvation, which is abbreviated in the name Yeshua. My only issue in all this is that people wrongly speak of someone called Yahshua and then, worse still, they insist it is important to use this incorrect name.
Also, please understand that in Hebrew names, they often do not represent full sentences but rather composites of part of a divine name and part of a verb or noun. In the case of yehoshu`ah, the full sentence that “Yahweh is salvation” in Hebrew would be, “yahweh yeshu`ah,” or, “yahweh hu’ yeshua`ah.” So, the name yehoshu`ah is short for “Yahweh is salvation,” and then the shortened form of yehoshu`ah is yeshua`.
Erika, you wrote: “But still “Yehoshua” means “Yahweh will save” – so the name has to do with salvation, while the name “Jesus” in itself doesn’t have a meaning.”
How can Jesus’ name have “no meaning” ? It is a translation. Some of my cousins still go by the name of “Kovelic,” (Hi Yoh (o:) but when my great-grandparents came from Poland, they took the translation “Smith,” which literally means the same thing as “Kovelic” does in Polish. Now, in Poland, woodpeckers are also called “kovelics” because the tap-tapping of the bird’s beaks reminded some of blacksmiths. Whether you say Kovelic or you say Smith, the meaning is still historically the same: a blacksmith. No, they don’t sound alike at all ~ this type of translation is called a transliteration, meaning a literal translation, and was especially popular during the Slavic immigrations ~ but translating a name doesn’t strip it of its meaning. And yes, “A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” – Wm. Shakes.
The fact that Yeshua still responds to and blesses people who call Him Jesus should be the only guide we need. The translators were not being devious or trying to mislead people. Words get translated all the time — it was an honest process. I use both Yeshua and Jesus in referring to Him and I am utterly confident that He knows the intent of all our hearts. I believe we shouldn’t browbeat people into thinking that they must revert to an earlier (and to them, unfamiliar) form to be holier or closer to God, as this would be a kind of modern-day Phariseeism.
I have appreciated many of your comments and insights in the past, Erika, and your zeal for God is apparent. “JESUS” as a name has its legitimate place in history and if it is the most popular name to date for our Savior, we should respect that. If “YESHUA” takes its place on the world stage, so be it, and maybe it will actually be a sign of greater connection by Jews with their (and our) Messiah. But should Jews feel compelled to use that if they happen to connect more with the name Jesus? We shouldn’t assume that because they’re Jewish, they would naturally want to call the Lord, “Yeshua.” But if Yeshua rises to the top, it will have to get there by the same process that elevated the name of Jesus: through long-time, popular usage.
Time will tell. Meanwhile, it is still honorable to call the Lord JESUS. The main thing is that we call on Him!
Respectfully (and affectionately (o:)
Thank you Ruth 🙂 Now as I said earlier – I don’t condemn people who use the name “Jesus”, and I personally also use it sometimes if people are not able to connect with a different name.
But you know, everyone likes to stick to traditions while history is moving forward.
Luke 5:39 “No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”
To Dr. Brown: yes, I know that Hebrew names are often compositions of partial words (as you also could see from my explanation of how I get to “Yahshua”). Now I don’t insist on this name – but just to be clear why I find this name interesting:
It might well be that this name never has been in use during Yeshua’s life on earth – but if Yeshua indeed is the Messiah, then He certainly has more than just one name. What name night we derive from Rebelation 1:17? I think that “Yahshua” is not so far-fetched.
Now I think when people get crazy about names without understanding this, they are simply off base. You might have been confronted by many such people Dr. Brown.
Sorry, I wanted to say “Revelation 1:17”
Just one example of many others that Yeshua is not fully revealed to us yet.
One more note (and hopefully my last on for the moment): Yahshua violates Hebrew linguistic principles, which is why you have plenty of Hebrew names that end with Yah and Yahu but none that begin with Yah or Yahu. That becomes Yeho or just Yo. So, no such name as Yahshua!
What about the names “Ya’el” and “Yo’el”? I know that they are spelled without an “h” – but it is still the “Yah”-sound i.e. “Yoh”-sound, hinting to His name “Yahweh”.
Oh, I just see that “Ya’el” does not fit this pattern – it apparently means “goat”. So sorry for that.
But then there still is the name “Yahweh”. So what if Yeshua is more than just human – does He then still have to go by the Hebrew linguistic principles, or is He free to join Yahweh?
Of course this question only applies to Him after His ascension.
Not that Hebrew linguistic principles go against Yahweh – we just see this distinction there within these principles between man kind and Yahweh.
I am seeing the passion that some people have concerning the writing and oral traditions of the Jewish people, and I am beginning to see why. I am a Tongan biologically speaking, but in our culture, family and respect is the very important values of life. It’s amazing to learn about how the ancient scribes of the Israelite people used qere-ketiv, which means “Read”, and “It is written”. Was the Lord’s name, Yahweh, really too sacred to be pronounced?
If Jesus is referred to as Yahshua by someone, what is it they do to him?
Isn’t this matter similar to a man saying, “What in the World is the Trinity?”?
Ya’el does not relate to Yahweh. As for Yahweh, that is originally a verbal form, as I explained at the beginning of the broadcast today. Anyway, enough said. Be assured that I’m not speculating here; I’m simply repeating facts that are not known to Hebrew scholars, and there’s no point in me trying to prove a fact.
Dr. Brown, I corrected myself on Ya’el already. But you didn’t respond to my comments at 4:05 pm and 4:17 pm. You don’t need if you don’t want. But this is in essence what I think about the name “Yahshua”.
But be assured that I won’t mention this name again when addressing you, since you don’t like it. But I’m sure you also know that the term “Yah” is used throughout the Old Testament as a synonym for YHWH.
I don’t want to get hung up on these questions. This just was my honest evaluation of this topic, but it is clear that this topic is not a make-or-break question. I hope that we will be able to have more constuctive discussions in the future.
I wish I could respond to each post, but I’m not able to. I did try to get to a lot of yours, though!
In short, I love the name Yahweh and use it all the time; Yah is wonderful too! And Yeshua is our Savior’s name. Amen! That is all part of my vocabulary, although my emphasis is on who the Lord is vs. how His name was pronounced in ancient Israel. I don’t like “Yahshua” because there never was such a name, that’s all.
Agreed Dr. Brown! So let’s focus on essentials again 🙂 !
Just to clarify again: Yahshua to me does not relate to ancient Israel, but rather to our future!
And I think the essentials are well summarized in Ecclesiastes 12:13
“… Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. 12:14 For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil.”
Which you also try to pursue with these radio shows, Dr. Brown 🙂
Erika — amen to the essentials! 🙂 Thanks!
Dr. M.B., So, my name in Hebrew?
Jabez, I’m not sure I follow your question. Do you mean what is the “Ja” at the beginning? It’s simply verbal, representing the causative form in the third person imperfect, but unrelated to the Yah in Yahweh in terms of the divine name. Is that what you meant?
Dear Michael Brown,
I disagree with you on the use of the name Yeshua (ישוע).
I am a Hebrew speaking Israeli and my name is Yisrael (ישראל). Whenever Israeli parents want to name their baby by this name and she is a girl, they call her Yisraelah, the feminine form why? Because Hebrew nouns have genders and a girl can’t have a masculine name. If Jewish/Israeli parents want to call their daughter Yeshua they call her Yeshuah which is the feminine form. There have been many Jewesses named Yisraelah and Yeshuah. All Hebrew nouns must have a gender and do, that is how Hebrew works.
The Hebrew word for salvation (ישועה) is a feminine noun but when a male is given this name then the masculine form is used (ישוע).
Parents do not name their daughter Eric, but Erica because this is the feminine form of the same name and parents do not name their son Erica.
The word salvation/yeshuah (ישועה) is used in Psalms 118:14-15 in the feminine form because it is simply saying, salvation, in which case it must take the feminine.
To see if a word goes against “Hebrew linguistic principles” one really needs to look at it in Hebrew letters because there are no equivalent letters in the Roman alphabet.
For example; the first syllable in ya’el sounds like “ya” but is written יע which has no connection with God’s name. BTW the word means ibex.
In principle, there are many shortcomings in trying to discuss Hebrew in the Roman alphabet.
Thanks for your post, much appreciated!
I do need, however, to correct some Hebrew statements that you made. First, yeshu`a is NOT the masculine form of yeshu`ah, a noun which occurs only in the feminine. Yeshu’a, the proper name, is a shortened form of yehoshu`ah, plain and simple.
Second, while there can be feminine and masculine aspects of names, they are not categorized as such as nouns, which are always male or female. As for the modern name Yisra’elah, that is a feminine creation based on the name Yisra’el.
So, to be clear, nouns have masculine and feminine forms, like yeled and yaldah, for a male and female child, but names do not have male and female forms (is there a feminine form for Abraham or Isaac or Jacob or Moses?). Or, put another way, Is there a feminine form Moshah to compliment the male form Moshe? Obviously not. Furthermore, some names can be gender neutral, and we determine whether to use masculine or feminine verbs and pronouns based on the person who carries that name. (This would be like the name Robin in English; it can be male or female, depending on who uses it.)
That was the point I was making.
Dear Michael Brown יקר,
How did you conclude that Yeshua is the shortened form of Yehoshuah?
What is your point in saying, “(is there a feminine form for Abraham or Isaac or Jacob or Moses?). Or, put another way, Is there a feminine form Moshah to compliment the male form Moshe?”?
The word “Jesus” is a corruption from the Greek corruption and has no meaning. If it was a translation then the meaning would be plain to any English speaker and you would not be asking about it in this forum. If Yeshua “ישוע” was translated into English then it would be Salvation.
Dear Michael Brown,
In Genesis 30:6, Rachel called her son Dan (דן) meaning to judge.
In Genesis 30:21 Leah bore a daughter and called her Dinah (דינה), the feminine form of the same name in Genesis 30:6.
Dear Israel, thanks for the comments! I know the difference between translation and transliteration, and actually “Jesus” is none of both. “Yeshua” would be the transliteration, and “salvation” or “Yahweh saves” would be the translation.
As for the latter, I think that both translations are useful, that’s why I agree with both of them and wouldn’t say that they are mutually exclusive, since they are conveying a very similar message.
As for “Jesus” – while I don’t get bothered if people still call Him that, I still find it a bit hard to comprehend that some of them find it too hard to make the shift to His real name. As I have said before – some people are stuck to their traditions forever. This is not about changing the vocabulary of course – it is about changing the mindset and facing reality.
Depending on the time frame you’re looking at, both names are historically correct.
Depending on who one is talking to, either Name might be most appropriate.
A minister sat in my home recently from a sect which disbelieves the Trinity and believes in “replacement theology” though they don’t call it that. She told me that Paul had “changed his religion.” After I proved scripturally that Paul still considered himself a Jew, among other points, she testily snapped that I had an “argumentative spirit”, zipped up her Bible and left in a huff, probably “shaking the dust off her feet” as she and her companion made their departure. The whole experience was disturbing. I hope in my zeal I didn’t help to shut her mind forever! But at times like that, I can’t help but think that we Gentile Christians in America need a good reminder of Jesus’ Jewishness while in human form, and calling Him “Yeshua” seems to provide that perspective.
I’ll add that the ministers of this aforementioned sect also believe that because of Peter’s vision of the descending white sheet containing cleansed food, but representing Gentiles — that, in the words of one, “Because it “descended from above,” it actually means superiority.” !! Yikes!
Thanks for your questions.
1) Every biblical lexicon recognizes that Yeshua is a short form for Yehoshua. The clearest proof is that both names refer to the same person (such as the Yehoshua the son of Yehosadek in Zechariah, called Yeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah). There is no dispute about this.
2) Regarding Dan and Dinah, notice that they are two distinct names; a feminine form of Dan would have been Danah, not Dinah. Yes, one is masculine in form and the other feminine, but as I said before, not every name has a masculine and/or feminine form. That was my point about names like Abraham and Moses. There is no “feminine” form to these names.
3)It appears that you know Ivrit (modern Hebrew, for our other readers here), but not that much about biblical Hebrew (which was clear based on the question you asked on my radio show). Many Israelis, even native born, are fluent in modern Hebrew but don’t know biblical Hebrew well, hence some of your misstatements here.
Let me also correct what you have written to others here about the name of Jesus. God gave us the NT in Greek, and in Greek, the proper transliteration of Yeshua is Iesou or Iesous. This is not a corruption. The correct form for this in English is Jesus, and we know that Jesus is Savior and Salvation. That is who He is! If God wanted the whole world to know His Hebrew name, He could have given us the NT in Hebrew, or the apostles could have used His Hebrew name when they wrote, but instead, they wrote in Greek, and that’s how the first Gentile believers heard His name as the gospel came to them.
Do you accept the testimony of the Scriptures?
Yet one more comment to set the record straight. Greek does not have the sh sound, and since, in English, we get our biblical names through Latin and before that, through Greek, we say Moses (rather than Moshe) and Saul (rather than Shaul), and Solomon (rather than Shlomo) and Samuel (rather than Shmuel), and Jesus (rather than Yeshua); there are scores of other examples but I just cite these to make the point.
Again, I wouldn’t take time to correct individual posts here that are in linguistic error except for the fact that others read these posts and I would prefer that this website is not a tool for disseminating this kind of error. So, to transliterate Yeshua into Greek yields a form similar to what we have, Iesou/s, and in English, Jesus.
And remember, Hebrew y becomes English j, as in Josiah and Jeremiah and Jesus, all of which start with a y in Hebrew, but when they come into English, this is the form they take. Again, no mystery here!
Dr. Brown – but why not taking the correct transliteration which would be Yeshua?? Is that so hard to say for an English-speaker?? If God gave us blindness in part – is it then so wise to hold on to it, even when the time for it is over already??
Dr. Brown – one more question, if you have time:
Do you believe that Christians should be Gentiles (since you used the expresson “Gentile Christians”)? Should we not all be part of the same tree with Yeshua as its root? And if that tree is healthy – should it then consist out of a part that is bearing wild fruit and a part that is bearing noble fruit? How can that be if there is only one root for all the branches?
Again my question: Should Christians be Gentiles?
If so, what then about Ephesians 2:12-22, where Paul says that Yeshua abolished the genitle hostility against His Law in the flesh, and Jeremiah 31:33 which says that God wants to write His Law upon the hearts of “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” – and what about Galatians 3:29 which also is against any gentile element in the body of Messiah?
Should we promote Constantine’s separation of Jews and Gentiles anylonger, which in the end resulted in replacement theology?
God wanted every nation in the world to be able to relate to His Son in the way that was most natural for them in their language, which is why He gave us the NT in Greek. You are saying that God and His apostles made a mistake!
To be perfectly candid, it absolutely boggles my mind that people keep arguing that we should say Yeshua rather than Jesus, especially when the name Yeshua in English has no meaning and you must explain what it means, in which case you can just as easily say, “Jesus is short for Yahweh is salvation.”
So, I’m just going to put this out clearly: Unless you can give me a good reason why the NT apostles were in error in communicating to the world in Greek and using the form Iesous, I would say this has been hashed out enough here and we’ve come to the end of the discussion. (And remember: I personally think it’s great to say Yeshua and many of my Messianic Jewish friends use that name all the time. My point is that it is also wonderful to say Jesus!)
As for the term “Gentile Christians,” I’m simply following Paul’s usage in Romans 11, for example, 11:13: “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry.”
In Jesus, saved Jews and saved Gentiles make one Body and one family, all of us equal in God’s sight.
Oh no, now I’ve made the same mistake! My last sentence should have been
“Should we promote Constantine’s separation of Jews and Christians anylonger, which in the end resulted in replacement theology?”
OK, let’s leave the name thing.
What boggles MY mind is that we find it so hard to separate from Constantine’s teachings. I don’t think Paul wanted that the Roman believers should have a different belief system than the believers of Jerusalem.
I think this book makes it clear what I mean by this: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bxw4eK-XoK0vYTA2YzUxMWQtYWRlNS00OTg4LWIwYTMtYjBjNDI5YjJhYTc4&hl=en
This was the first chapter of this book:
Dr. Brown, you said:
“In Jesus, saved Jews and saved Gentiles make one Body and one family, all of us equal in God’s sight.”
Now according Ephesians 2:11-22 that is only possible if the Geniles stop being Gentiles. If a wild branch (Romans 11:17) is grafted, it changes its nature – it STOPS being wild.
Dear Michael Brown,
Where did the lexicon authors get this and how many lexicon authors copied each other’s notes? It should be authenticated. I know as fact that a certain university which is well known for its theology studies, requires its students to make an oath over the communion cup before they start the course and promise to accept all teaching without question, accept it to be fully authoritive and proclaim it to all be authentic and of the highest standard. This explains how they get their reputation. I certainly am not suggesting that you were required to do this but it is possible that other universities were influenced by their teachings or have lecturers who studied there. If I accepted what is recognised by the majority of scholars and great learned sages who lived before me (even my own fathers) then I would consider the Trinity to be a false goyisha teaching and Rabbi Yeshua to be a fake and I would be persecuting Yeshua’s bride like Rabbi Shaul did and like many of my own orthodox brothers do and have done to me.
I don’t believe that one person’s name being shortened in one place makes it a rule that a name is always a short form for everybody else.
Just because a person does not agree with some lexicon references and wants them to be authenticated first does not mean that he does not know Biblical Hebrew. In the same way just because a person is a Messianic Jew and does not hate Yeshua the Messiah of Israel is not proof that he never studied in yeshivah. I would not be too presumptuous.
The church fathers tell us plainly that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Various top Bible and Hebrew scholars that specialise in this area have given lectures in Jerusalem and their reasons for believing that certain books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew originally, however the gentile believers were unable to maintain them in Hebrew over the generations. Any books that may not have been written in Hebrew originally were translated into Greek at the time of writing and therefore remain translations. God gave his teachings to His apostles through the Hebrew language and they personally explained the teachings to the gentiles as Greek does not have equivalent words for many Hebrew words. Personal teaching overcomes the problems of translations.
I’m blessed that you are my brother in the Lord and as a Jew, are following Yeshua with passion and devotion. At the same time, I’m very sorry to say that your post contains unjustified suspicion towards lexicographers (and having worked in this field, I can tell you your suspicions are baseless). And, as I stated, when you called in to ask about the vowel points under yhwh in the Tanakh, you made clear that you were ignorant of very basic facts about biblical Hebrew. I don’t say this to insult you, as I’m sure you could tell me much about modern Israeli Hebrew that I have not kept track of. So, again, you’re raising questions that you would not raise if you immersed yourself in biblical Hebrew grammar and lexicography and historical development.
With regard to Matthew, you are again mistaken. In point of fact, there is testimony from one Church Father, Papias, preserved by Eusebius, that Matthew originally collected the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew (or, Aramaic). But the Matthew we have today is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, and whatever Papias compiled was not ultimately preserved. What God gave us and preserved for us is a Tanakh in Hebrew (with a few Aramaic passages) and a New Testament in Greek.
As far as your other statements about alleged Hebrew teaching being passed on through the apostles, there is little doubt that Yeshua taught primarily (if not exclusively) in Aramaic, not Hebrew, and, more importantly, every ancient manuscript we have of the New Testament is written in Greek.
If you would like to study this more carefully, I would encourage you to read the following article. Click here: http://askdrbrown.org/resources/free-resources/israel-resources and then to go Articles, Review of Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus.
I really have no desire to argue back and forth about established lexical facts — such as your suggestion that there is a masculine form of the noun yeshu’ah — anymore than I want to argue back and forth about my name being Michael. So, do some digging into the major scholarly lexicons, check the hundreds of cross-references they supply, and that should answer your questions satisfactorily.
Might I add that the “J” is a new sound in English. The original English translators never said Jesus. The “J” sound was not pronounced until the middle of the 1600’s. King James (circa 1611) and his scholars did not know the “J’ sound.
The “S” sound at the end was not pronounced at that time either, as it was not actually part of the spoken name.
As Dr. Brown said the “SH” sound did not exist in Greek.
So the beginning, middle and end of the word “Jesus” is not a correct transliteration of the Savior’s name.
The true English word for our Messiah is Joshua. But the “J” sounds like a “Y”. This is still the case in many European languages. (The man’s name “Jan” is pronounced “Yon”.) We still refer to Moshe’s successor as Joshua and his name is exactly the same as Messiah’s.
That modern English has evolved over the past 300 years to mispronounce the Master’s name is regrettable.
I wonder why the English name Joshua has the “Ah” vowel sound in the first syllable. Why is this not “Jeshua”? Did the KJV scholars not know? I think they did, for they knew that Moshe’s successor was called “Yehoshua”. Maybe the proper short form of this name is Yoshua not Yeshua. But, of course, I am no linguist.
That Iesou/s/n is the correct transliteration into Greed is not in question. The question is, “Do we know how to pronounce this Greek word?” Let us give it a try.
No “J” at the beginning. No “s” or “n” sound at the end as it is not spoken. The “s” in the middle, we know, is representing the Hebrew “SH”. We seem to get “Yeashu” which is close to the old English pronunciation. But we know that there is a “ah” at the end in Hebrew, so it would be “Yeashua”.
But wait, How do we know what the first syllable sounds like? We do not, as no one speaks Koine Greek. The modern pronunciation of Koine Greek is a matter of convention for the sake of scholars communicating it to each other.
Since we must modify almost every sound somewhat to get the Greek to match the Hebrew why is it that we are so staunch about the first vowel sound being “eh” instead of “ah”? The KJV translators opted for “ah” at the beginning of Joshua’s name even though they pronounced Iesou as “Yeasu”.
There are historical reasons to say Yahshua. (This is how the KJV writers would have pronounced “Joshua”.) There are Scholarly reasons to say Yeshua. There are cultual reasons to say Jesus. I do not believe that Miriam was told to say Jesus. I do not think that Greek gives us the exact sounds to say. So we are left with two options.
I may like “Yahshua”. You may like “Yeshua”. Just like there is not 100% proof that Yahweh is correct, there is not 100% proof that Yeshua is correct. So slight differences should at least be tolerated.
The Question was “Who in the world is Yahshua?”. The answer is…My Messiah!(Give or take a vowel sound.)
And I wonder why we all agree on how to say the devils name? Maybe there is a spiritual battle going on. Maybe the devil has worked overtime to keep his name known and YHWH”S and His Son’s covered up.
Let us do the best we can.
I won’t interact with all your other statements (many of which I differ with) but suffice it to say for the hundredth time: There is no such name in Hebrew as Yahshua. Can’t be!
Also, are you saying that God made a mistake to give us the Scriptures in Greek and to introduce Yeshua to the world as Iesous?
Dangerous Bo and everyone:
There is 100% assurance that Jesus’ name in Hebrew was Yeshua. We are 100% sure that God’s name in Hebrew is Yahweh, but we are almost entirely sure.
As for the devil’s name, in English we say Satan (pronounced sey-ten), but in Hebrew it is pronounced ha-satan (pronounced hah-sah-tahn). The pronunciation is not the issue!
Why did the KJV scholars choose “Joshua” for Yehoshua’s name instead of “Jeshua”? As you know, they did not pronaounce the “J”. Thus spoken “Yoshua” instead or “Yeshus.”
That should have been:
Thus spoken “Yoshua” instead or “Yeshua.”
Please know that I have no problem with Iesous if it is pronounced correctly. The issue is that a transliteration only comes as close as possible and we know that the Greek did not come that close. We aldo do not know for sure how to pronounce the Greek.
That should have been:
We also do not know for sure how to pronounce the Greek.
I gotta stop for breath before I hit the submit button.
In the KJV, the full name Yehoshuah becomes Joshua, which is correct, while the shortened form Yeshua becomes Jeshua, which is correct.
So then, it was fine for the NT to be given by God in Greek, correct? That being the case, it is ridiculous for us to argue that it’s important to say Yeshua instead of Jesus.
I find that the LXX has Iesou/s as the transliteration of Yehoshua in the Hebrew. I find that the Greek N.T. has Iesou/s for the Messiah’s name.
As per your statement above, Joshua is the correct English for Yehoshua.
So Yehoshua = Iesou/s = Joshua. So the name of the Savior in the N.T. is the same as the long form of Joshua in the Hebrew. We know that the “J” is a decorative form of “I” and that Hebrew has no “J” sound.
Why does this not show that Messiah’s name is Yoshua (Yahshua)?
It is true that the LXX used Iesou/s for both Yehoshua and the shorter form Yeshua (for which see, e.g., Ezra 3:2), but from other evidence we have (e.g., the Peshitta as well as Rabbinic references to Jesus’ name), when the NT uses Iesous with reference to our Messiah, it reflects Hebrew Yeshua, not Yehoshua.
As for your last question, to repeat yet again (I’ve lost count of the times), there never was a Hebrew name Yahshua. Period. Please review the earlier posts where I explained this repeatedly. Yahshua never existed; it is not derived from Yehoshua (whereas Yeshua is); it is an imaginary form, made up especially in recent times by people into the Sacred Name Cult or by some uninformed Hebrew Roots or Messianic Jewish teachers.
I know people are posting sincerely here to try to find out the truth, but I’m about to shut this discussion down since: 1) It’s a terrible waste of time to keep hashing out this issue of the original pronunciation of Jesus’ name since the NT was given to us in Greek (as I’ve repeated ad infinitum here) — which means it’s not a major issue — and since we know the correct pronunciation was Yeshua; and 2) I’m jealous that this site here not be a portal for error, but there’s no way for me to continue to correct misconceptions and misstatements here day and night, and if I have to prove that, say, 1+1=2, only to have it questioned, there’s no point in stating anything. Perhaps aliens are actually running the internet and Elvis Presley is alive and well, serving as the leader of Russia.
So why is “Jesus” then so much better than “Yahshua”??
As Paul said – Yahweh is made perfect and glorified through all our imperfections – but in my opinion “Jesus” is more imperfect than “Yahshua”.
The reason that we have most of the New Testament in Greek today is because Greek was the world’s language back then like English is today. Are these languages therefore better than the Hebrew?
Yahweh can glorify Himself through anything – even through a donkey (story of Balaam).
“Yahshua” might not be “historically correct” – but it can also be an aspect of the Messiah. I personally find it more intriguing than the Hellenistic “Jesus”.
And yes Dr. Brown, you are right when you say that it is ridiculous to make a dogma out oft this name thing. I too feel really bad about so many people doing this.
You’re missing the point. Yahshua is a non-existent name, a figment of someone’s imagination that doesn’t even work in Hebrew while it pretends to be Hebrew.
Jesus is the way we say His name in English, which is what matter, since in giving the NT to the world in Greek (and then, in many translations into many languages since), God is saying, “I want you to relate to Me and My Son through your own native language” — the very thing you are opposing here.
Why is pronunciation “Jesus” not just as invented as the pronunciation “Yahshua”?
The word “Joshua” was pronounced “Yoshua” by the very persons that penned it. The name “Jesus” was pronounced “Yeasu” by the very ones that penned it. It was English speaking people that made both of these words. “Joshua” has changed little over the last 300 years. “Jesus” has very little resemblance at all to the original pronunciation.
Why is the pronunciation “Yoshua” somehow less English than “Yeasu”? Why is “Jesus” somehow more right than “Joshua”?
We know that the latter is a closer pronunciation as the middle and end of the word are correct. We know that the “J” sound is not correct in Hebrew, Older English, and most other languages.
Do you think that “Jesus” is somehow the new name of Messiah that is spoken of in Revelation? Why is “Joshua” (without the “J” sound) not as good? And just as English, for that matter?
The Greek “Iesous” is the correct form of either “Jesus” or “Joshua” if pronounced properly.
Dr. Brown I appreciate this topic/conversation a lot, thank you a lot for explaining these things which were confusing to me.
Although the conversation got very repetitive, the points made are very good and I appreciate the correction. Now, I am curious when the show will be available to listen to again?
Thanks, Blessings to everyone!
Comments are closed.