Talk:Yahshua

2005

Thanks for balancing things out and presenting the more-or-less positive side by creating Yahshua. I didn't really intend to trample on anyone's religion when I rewrote and expanded Yashuah, and I hope I didn't come on too strong -- but the H at the end of YashuaH bugs me because this H at the end is completely incorrect in terms of Hebrew linguistics, and I don't have any idea where they get this H at the end from, other than from the Pentagrammaton of Renaissance occultists. Some of them certainly do get it from the Pentagrammaton, as you can see on page http://yhwh.com/Cross/cross22.htm etc. AnonMoos 07:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote Yahshuah to synchronize with this article, and hopefully be more accurate. AnonMoos 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good page, I added the Daniel Segraves book, some comments.

"Those who follow Sacred Name teachings .. believe that it is essential to salvation..." There is a lot of variation, and this could be seen as an overstatement.

"transliteration of the Hebrew יהושע (yod-he-waw-shin-ayin - usually transliterated as Y'hoshua or sometimes Yahoshua)" Yahshua and Yahushua are the most common, in my experience, these other two are rare in the sacred name (which some proponents prefer to be called qodesh name) movements.

"Critics say..." Also that multi-syllabic theophoric names always begin with a 'Yeh' sound, never with a 'Yah' sound as documented in the Gerard Gertoux and Scott Jones Tetragrammaton articles, as well as, the Segraves book.

"perhaps developed by leaders such as Angelo B. Traina and C.O. Dodd." Andrew N. Dugger as well, right in there.

Good article. For now I won't make any changes based on these.

24.193.219.212 09:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Merge

The articles Yahshuah and Yahshua should be merged here at Yahshua.
Both are the purported transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (that is, "Jesus"); it's intended to be pointedly different from Yeshua.
Yahshuah and Yahshua differ by only one character ("h"); the two can easily be addressed in one article.

This article Yahshua is not necessarily better than the article Yahshuah; it's just that Yahshua is the more common spelling.
For example, Google searches on 2010-02-20 yielded: Yahshua...170,000 results versus Yahshuah...37,900 results

The current articles at Yahshua and Yahshuah have unique content which requires someone to make some conscientious decisions.
I'll mention this proposed merging also at the Talk pages for Yahshuah, Yeshua (name), Jesus,
Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament, and Christology.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They're obviously closely related, but they're still somewhat different, since: --

1) While both terms are somewhat bogus in terms of authentic ancient Hebrew, "Yahshuah" contains a glaring error which "Yahshua" lacks (confusion of the two completely different Hebrew letters/consonants ע and ה).

2) "Yahshuah" has a long historical pedigree, going back to the Renaissance occultistic "Pentagrammaton" (i.e. יהוה + ש = יהשוה) which is not really the case for "Yahshua".

I'm not sure how merging the two articles would necessarily clarify discussion of these issues. -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Topics which are closely related (but somewhat different) are often better understood when juxtaposed.
For example, clarity results for a researcher clicking on an inbound link, and/or for a researcher who had previously assumed Yahshua and Yahshuah to be merely spelling variants (as is the case for Jehovah and Jehova, and many similar examples). The fact is that the two sometimes ARE merely spelling variants.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But the whole Renaissance occultism historical connection is basically irrelevant for Yahshua. Jehova is a variant of Jehovah because the Hebrew "h" which is silent in that position can be frequently omitted in transcription or transliteration, while Yahshuah is not a simple variant of Yashua because a Hebrew `ayin consonant (i.e. voiced pharyngeal sound) cannot ordinarily validly become an "h" in Hebrew or any other language. The idea of a merger certainly sounds good in the abstract, but I don't really see how the treatment of specific details would be improved by the merger. AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Letter "j"

A Latin [y] sound at the beginning of a word became an English [dž] sound in basically all Latin words beginning with [y] that were borrowed into English, due to sound changes in early medieval French. "Jesus" is no different in this respect from words like "judge" etc... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

true name of Yahshua

There is no J in the Hebrew language. Jesus doesn't translate to Yahshua. There is no translation to English of Yahshua except Salvation. Jesus translates to a Greek/Roman fire god Esus or Hesus which is a Polish woodsman that has similarities to Jesus. It is also a Celtic use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madamesarge (talk • contribs) 05:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ALL Biblical Hebrew names beginning with "Y" begin in modern English with either "I" (Isaac, Israel) or "J" (Jacob, Jesse, Joshua), due to normal linguistic developments in the adaptation of Hebrew into Greek and Latin, of Latin into medieval French, and of medieval French into modern English.

If you want to get technical, then the ancient Greek spelling Iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon-sigma (Ιησους) was actually the closest possible adaptation or borrowing of the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic name Yēšūʕ (ישוע or yod-shin-waw-`ayin) into Greek which the rules of the sound-system and morphology of Greek would allow:

The ancient Greek language did not have any voiced pharyngeal `Ayin ע consonant or palatal sibilant [š] ("sh") sound, and insofar as a [y] consonant sound existed, it was phonologically just a variant of the [i] vowel. So there were simply no Greek letters for `Ayin, "sh", or "y". And in late Hellenistic Greek, omicron-ypsilon ου was pronounced as a simple long [u] vowel (the [u] in Yēšūʕ is also long). And finally, if a noun or name was to be "declined" in Greek (i.e. have distinct forms for at least some of the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and vocative morphological cases), then it needed to have appropriate Greek grammatical endings added on at the end -- and almost half the non-neuter nouns in the Greek language had an "s" ending in the nominative singular. So Iēsous (pronounced [yēsūs] is the nearest that ancient Greek could get to Hebrew and/or Aramaic Yēšūʕ while obeying the rules of ancient Greek grammar.

From Greek Ιησους it's a pretty straight shot to Latin Iesus (spelled IESVS in ancient inscriptions) through French to modern "Jesus" (following the normal sound changes which mean that the ancient Latin word IVDEX, pronounced "yoo-deks", has become "judge" in modern English)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits and reverts April 2012

To EliyshevaF, I think I feel some of your frustration as you find your carefully written material repeatedly removed. It is not simply because we agree/disagree with your statements; it's because Wikipedia is a place to explain and present information. It is not the place to argue and persuade those who disagree, but a place to summarize information on topics. If you can cite published sources or Web pages that present your claims, then you will find your material remains. When I first got onto Wikipedia, I had to struggle with these policies, too. I hope you can find a balance, presenting material supporting your viewpoint and still citing sources appropriately. Amicably, Pete unseth (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Very biased article

Seems to me the only point of view this article is offering is that Yahshua is incorrect and Yeshua is the correct form of the Messiah's name. I hope to make some additions to the article with evidence for the name Yahshua shortly. In Citer (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Questioning Claims about Greek: God or translator?

This article states "Since the entire New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew, it suggests that God does not consider it inappropriate to use a name or title for Christ in keeping with that of another language or culture. The New Testament repeatedly calls the Hebrew Messiah by Greek names, several of them."

There's a bunch of things wrong with this uncited claim. Translation choices into English from the Greek suggests nothing about God's considerations but about translator's considerations. It should read suggests translators do not consider it ... making the English use of the name Jesus (opposed to the use of his given Hebrew name) a function of translation tradition more than God's preference. Furthermore, though many New Testament manuscripts are currently in Greek they are generally not considered (even by Christians) to be the source documents as they contain differences and marginal errors. There is some evidence that the source documents were Hebrew not Greek (such as the many appearances of Hebrew idioms appearing in Greek in the book of Matthew etc. and elsewhere). This claim that God does not consider it inappropriate to use a name or title for Christ ... in another language is clearly POV and unsupported. I can see why some would wish to have this POV reflected in the article (the idea of the name Jesus being mere tradition has theological implications. Still the name Jesus only appears in English after the reformation so maybe that's not a bad thing ...) but still, for the sake of consistency, either credit some scholar with this POV or make the article correctly reflect that these choices are not Gods but translators LinuxDude (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see thay LinuxDude is involved and committed on this topic. At this moment I will not address the big issues just stated, but I will point out that the following statement is not correct: "New Testament manuscripts... currently in Greek they are generally not considered (even by Christians) to be the source documents". Trying to be peaceful & calm on a subject that can excite people. Pete unseth (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• I can’t see the diff where the first passage above was added, just about a year ago, so it must have been part of the revdel’d copyvio that fell through the cracks. Indeed some of it is still verbatim from the source indicated in the deletion log. Accordingly I’m going to remove it—@Hut 8.5: care to review and see if more revdels are needed?—Odysseus1479 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies, this was indeed added in the edit by Deshalyn which was revdeled. It is a copyvio, I must have assumed that it had been reverted when I did the revdel. The intervening revisions don't necessarily need to be revdeled, revdel isn't really supposed to be used on a large scale and we're only talking about one paragraph (Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use). The main thing is that the text is gone from the article. Even apart from the copyvio I don't think this content is suitable without being completely rewritten and properly cited. For one thing the claim doesn't make sense unless you believe that God was responsible for the wording in those parts of the New Testament, and plenty of Christians don't. Hut 8.5 21:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Differentiating whether this article is about Hebrew texts or Greek texts

As I read the artice, it is not clear to me when the article is referring to usage in Hebrew texts or when in Greek texts. I suspect that part of this is that many in the Sacred Name Movement assume a Hebrew text underlying Greek texts. But the article would benefit from a clarification of these issues. The Greek texts do not give the option of pronouncing "Yahshua". Pete unseth (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's about the Sacred Name Movement's speculations, more than anything.

By the way, I've come to realize that the parallel article "Yahshuah" should actually be named "Pentagrammaton" -- an older and more valid name... AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pete. You are right of course. Aramaic Primacy needs to explained in this article and I will YW get around to it. In Citer (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the section "Usage"

The section labeled "Usage" is currently difficult to understand. It is not clear if the text is quoting is quoting Brown or Traina. I see that part of the problem was caused by an anonymous editor earlier. As it is, the section is currently incoherent. I suggest that somebody who thinks they understand it should rewrite it. Otherwise, it is so bad it should be deleted. I hope somebody fixes it. Pete unseth (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If I have time, I would like to work on this article. Big 'if' though. Further, I'm thinking of changing the lead so it reads:

"Yahshua is a proposed transliteration of the original Hebrew name of the Messiah, also referred to in modern times as Jesus."

Yahshua is not a transliteration of the name Yeshua. That's completely erroneous. Why would Yahshua be based on the form Yeshua. Both Yeshua and Yahshua are attempted transliterations of the name of the Messiah. If anyone has a problem with this, or any other edit I make to the article (I usually discuss before I make changes) let me know. In Citer (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Matter of fact, I'm going to go ahead and make the change now. It has frustrated me that this is how this article has read all this time and no-one has amended what should be an encyclopaedic article In Citer (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hebrew

I'll be honest, my knowledge of Hebrew isn't brilliant, but I do have some knowledge on this subject. Would anyone be kind enough to supply me the Hebrew rendering of this name without the vowel points. I don't know how to produce it. This is Johshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ so please forgive me for this discrepancy for now. I tried to make the non-vowel pointed version here: יהושע I hope this is correct! In Citer (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope I got the dagel and ragel Hebrew letters correct in the New Testament section In Citer (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cleaning up this article

It's already been decided that, because Yahshuah has it's own article, references to Yahshuah should not appear on this article.

"While some advocates of the "Yahshuah" spelling have asserted that the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states that..."

But I do plan on devoting a section to both Yeshua and Jesus, seen as these are the most popular alternatives. It needs to be understood why proponents of the name Yahshua, especially I'm referring to the Assemblies of Yahweh, do not use the term Yeshua or Jesus and it's for grammatical - as well as a number of other - reasons. Right now we have an Evidence section which contains not much evidence really on the name Yahshua. Instead, someone has claimed that Yahshua isn't correct because of the 'waw', which is a criticism dealt with in the previous section.

"Critics say that in their labor to get the pronunciation "Yahshua" out of יהושע, they are ignoring Hebrew linguistics that do not allow the waw to be silent so "Yahshua" is a questioned transliteration. "

The Yahshua, Yeshua or Jesus heading contains another criticism of the name Yahshua by someone who claims that there is no evidence for the name Yahshua.

"Why then do some people refer to Jesus as Yahshua? There is absolutely no support for this pronunciation—none at all"

Frankly, I strongly disagree, and that's me being polite. Then there's the whole issue of making out that Yahshua is not found anywhere in the Bible when it depends on how accurate the transliteration is in to English. I'm referring to the Usage section.

"The name "Yahshua" cannot be found with that spelling anywhere in history or in Hebrew writings prior to the 1900s."

The name of the Messiah had the same name as the Israelite general, commonly called Joshua, but just by replacing the J with a Y as it ought to be would give you a far better transliteration of the name almost identical to Yahshua. In Citer (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

So I've made some changes to the article, mainly, added a 'New Testament' section on evidence for the New Testament originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. I have deleted some of the information on article relating to for example the name Yahshuah and the criticism of the name Yahshua not appearing in the texts as this is clearly a falsehood. Yahshua is found in the text. The Israelite general - who succeeded of Moses - had the same name, among others. It would be like saying Yah doesn't appear in the text because it's normally transliterated as Jah. I'm going to deal with the name Yeshua in more detail and the name Jesus, which is actually from the Latin and which does not represent the meaning of the name Yahweh is salvation as Yahshua does. I also plan to add some more evidence for the name Yahshua from scholarly sources, but this will no doubt be next week. Shabbath shalom. In Citer (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticisms

I've added a criticisms section and went through the previous versions to include criticisms of the name Yahshua. In Citer (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor2020

Thank you for your edits to the article. I have re-inserted Acts 4:12 to the article as this is an important scripture supporting the name of Yahshua. I'm a bit saddened by the fact that since 28 December 2018, the article has stated that "Yahshua is one proposed transliteration of the original Hebrew or Aramaic name of Yeshua", yet in a matter of days when I changed this to "Yahshua is the proposed transliteration of the original Hebrew name of the Messiah", this was changed by yourself to "Yahshua is a proposed transliteration...". Although I am glad that the erroneous statement that 'Yahshua is a transliteration of Yeshua' is no longer in the article, I am concerned that there seems to be a tendency for this article to lean towards an anti-Yahshua stance, despite the evidence. Also, not sure why you have added the rewrite template to the article, especially since you haven't explained yourself at all in the discussion page for this. I will remove the template if any reason for this is not forthcoming. In Citer (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Acts does not support the name Yahshua, as it does not occur in that verse.
2. There is more than one proposed transliteration, therefore a proposed transliteration.
3. The article still needs more rewrite. Editor2020 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Editor

1. Acts does support the name as the meaning of the name of Yahshua is retained in the verse, as it does many other verses which mention the salvation of Yahweh.

2. Indeed there is more than one proposed transliteration, but it would be nice to see the same fervour for accuracy when the article erroneously said that Yahshua is a transliteration of the name Yeshua for a whole year.

3. Again if the article needs a rewrite, let us know how you feel the article needs a rewrite. Again, I am inclined to remove this template if a reason isn't forthcoming In Citer (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the verse cited: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." How is this a source for "Yahweh (Yah) is salvation"?

I am not responsible for what others may not have done in the past. I was the one who removed that statement.

That what I have been doing on this Talk page and in my numerous edits to this article. Editor2020 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yahshua

Was Jacob O. Meyer the first to use the term Yahshua? Is it used in just the AOY or in the larger Sacred Name movement?Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the Sacred Name Movement uses a variety of different names for the Messiah. The Assemblies of Yahweh uses consistently the name Yahshua since it's inception. In Citer (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.Editor2020 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A.B. Traina or C.O. Dodd are the first people I know who used Yahshua. Yahnatan (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

In Citer, I have cleaned up several grammar and usage problem and have tagged several things that needed to be referenced. If you could clean up these issues that would be great. Editor2020 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Editor. I feel what you have done is gone through every single sentence and put a citation tag against those things which have not been directly referenced, even if they have been referenced in (say) the previous sentence or throughout the article. Also, I don't think the changes improve the article. I'll make some edits to the article once I have time. I feel that you may be biased, which I'm not going to criticise you for, but please remember this is an encyclopaedia article. But just for an example, there is no need mentioning the Assemblies of Yahweh in the lead sentence, or paragraph as according to MOS:FIRST. The lead was absolutely fine the way it was which succinctly explained the name of Yahshua as being a transliteration of the Hebrew letters (with the Hebrew letters included) and the meaning of the name Yahshua. Although the Assemblies of Yahweh does use the name Yahshua, the article isn't about the Assemblies of Yahweh just as the Yahweh article isn't about the Assemblies of Yahweh, it's about evidence for and against the name to which the Assemblies of Yahweh can be referenced to within the article. In Citer (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I was not sure about that change in the WP:Lead, but thought it would help justify the extensive use of AOM WP:Primary sources. For now we'll just let that be and develop the article. When done we can write a Lead section which reflects the article. If you feel that something tagged is referenced somewhere else in the article, please remove the tag and replace it with a WP:Reliable Source. No bias here, just looking to build a quality article, where claims need sources. Editor2020 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Correcting / Balancing Bias

As it stands the page is virtually an apologetic for the name Yahshua from the perspective of the Assemblies of Yahweh. I’ve added a Christian / Messianic Jewish criticism. We also could use any unbiased sources on the rendition of this name, as I have never seen any scholarly source outside the Sacred Name groups push “Yahshua” as legitimate.Yahnatan (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

On the sources used here

The general idea on Wikipedia is that articles should be built around what WP:RELIABLE sources say about an issue. That's supposed to be the backbone of an article, and then occasionally there may be minor roles for fringe sources or what have you to be cautiously used in certain limited settings. This article as it stands has this exactly backwards. I think it might be useful to just go through all the citations currently in the article to outline what's going on here. The citations are numbered 1-11.

Citation 1 is to Albert Schweitzer, who legitimately was a significant figure in scholarship. However, Schweitzer is not actually giving any direct information about the subject of the article here; the citation of his name contains no mention of the peculiar spelling "Yahshua", but he is simply used to introduce the idea of "underlying" Hebrew and Aramaic forms to Greek texts.

Citation 2 is to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Likewise, no mention of "Yahshua" in that citation, which the article uses as a stepping-off point to support something vaguely resembling an argument for the "Yahshua" position.

That's it as far as anything we could call reliable sources goes. Citations 2, 5, and 10 are to self-published PDF booklets from non-academic sources. Citation 3, though not a PDF, is the same sort of thing. Citations 6, 8, and 9 are to Michael Brown. Citation 6 is to an actual book he published, but nothing like a published academic work; more a pop-level explanatory book published through Chosen Books, a religious niche publisher currently selling Breakthrough to Your Miracle. And 8 and 9 are to his self-published internet material.

In other words, there's not a single reliable source in the article that even establishes the idea that this whole "Yahshua" business gets any coverage in reliable sources. As such, the article has a potential notability problem, and unless someone can come up with significant coverage in reliable sources, it is impossible for this article to cover the topic properly. 2600:2B00:7B19:5800:D88A:943B:3497:64CD (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The first section must be rewritten or removed : no understandable syntax and contradict knowledge (July 2020)

The current first sentence is practically unreadable : the lack of proper syntax makes it extremely useless. I am surprised to see this on Wikipedia. It currently reads : Yahshua is a HEBREW of the original Hebrew name of Jesus of Nazareth is Pagan (Hebrew: יהושע), considered by Christians a pagan name Jesus from greek Iosys and is the false name of Messiah.

The number of issues with this sentence, just in terms of grammar, syntax and using BIG CAPS for no reason, are numerous.

Could someone scholarly please repair this (I am not a theologian, linguist nor historian, so I do not dare attempt to write the facts here).

The second sentence is utterly doubtful and contradicts known facts about the Jewish meaning of the word translated as Yahweh.

Source : see Names of God in Judaism

Currently this page claims : The name means Yahweh (Yah) is salvation (Shua)

The known fact is Yahweh (YHWH) refers to god answering a question about its name and it means "I am what I am", "I am" or "I will be what I will be", which utterly means the answer is "I have no name : I am".

I am not an expert, but the current first section, placed above the table of contents, is very much under Wikipedia standards. The rest (below the table of contents) seems fine (not sure).

- Michaël Lessard (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC) (for fun, the name Michael comes from a Hebrew question: Who is like god??)

Please feel free to repair/replace any grammar/English usage problems you find. That first section, called the WP:LEAD section, is supposed brief summary of the article, so you can remove anything that is not referenced in the article. As far as theology goes, I guess we'll have to wait. Editor2020 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted to an earlier version that is better. Editor2020 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased and incorrect statements again are placed in article with no counteraction

They are so many problems with this article now that I wouldn't know where to begin. Firstly, the wrong Hebrew letters are being used to represent the name of Yahshua. The letters are yothe, hey, waw, shin and ‘ayin. I believe it is User:WikiEditorial101 that has done a disservice to the article and wholly complicated what should be a simple article, but I'll have to go through the history and pinpoint exactly where it went wrong. It reads badly, it's all mixed up and they are clear lies put in to the article. Take for example the section 'A Silent Waw'. Some doofus has changed what Elder Jacob O. Meyer has said to say that he was supporting the name Yahushua, which isn't true. The quote was correct before and to introduce lies in to the article to say this is something Elder Meyer has said is an insult to my intelligence i.e. "Consequently, when we pronounce the Messiah's Name—Yahushua, that is the way it should be pronounced.[21]" is how the article reads.

I'll be reverting the article to an earlier version but I'll wait a bit and see if anyone wants to talk about this here. If you want to make changes to the article then you should put your intentions on the talk page first as clearly they are those who want to even change what sources themselves say. In Citer (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I hope this reply finds you doing well. A "doofus" I may be, but I never introduced any content mentioning any Hebrew letters into the article at all. And it was certainly never my intention to introduce any sort of disinformation. Mostly I attempted to clean up and sort out a big mess, and, apparently, I may have made some mistakes. However, I believe the content you're referring to (which, again, I did not myself add) are the sacred syllables of the name of the God of Abraham, not His Son, and that this mention is in the context of another editor explaining the part of the Messiah's name that contains the Father's name within it.

In regards to the spelling "Yahushua", I thought that I was correcting a previous editor's mistake, as Meyer's article/essay that the quote comes from is titled "The Name Yahushua", and throughout the article Mayer states that the Messiah's name is "Yahushua", and he asserts this repeatedly throughout the article, repeatedly using that spelling/pronunciation. So it would appear that the confusion, good sir, may actually be on your part. I'll be monitoring any changes to this article, and I welcome any constructive edits you may have to offer. However, if your confusion translates to any good faith mistakes, I'll be happy to help. Thank you for hard work, and happy editing! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Good day. You'll have to excuse me for my passion. Purposely misquoting what someone said and especially a spiritual leader is distasteful to me. I looked at the revisions WikiEditorial101. I already had the correct source in the article. You added this source: "The Name Yahushua" (PDF). Evangelistic Assembly Of Yahweh. The source doesn't even come from the Assemblies of Yahweh. I find it hard to believe that this was a simply mistake on your behalf. You made this edit adding the reference and changing the name from Yahshua to Yahushua on 04:42, 19 January 2021‎ where you said in the edit summary "→‎A silent waw: After reading Meyer's essay (cited here as the source for this content), I've added this for clarification". You then go to change the actual quote from Yahshua to Yahushua, and then at 23:06, 19 January 2021‎ you remove the actual source of the quote saying in your edit summary "Redundant, as source is cited inline".

I find it very dishonest of you to go to another religious organization and claim Elder Meyer spoke those words which the religion organization espouses. It has nothing to do with what Meyer wrote. So my question to you is why have you gone out your way

1. to introduce a source that has nothing to do with the name Yahshua
2. why you changed the source material and claimed it's what Meyer said when the original source was correct
3. removed the actual source from the article

In Citer (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't introduce that source at all—I simply copied and pasted it from within the article to use again, and anyone can see that if they look at the earlier versions of the page. And I just reviewed the document in question again, and at the end it clearly states "Evangelistic Assembly of Yahweh" as the originating source. I assure you that I would never introduce a new source from a church anyway, as Wikipedia doesn't consider that a reliable source (but notice that I didn't remove it anyway, though other editors would have surely backed me doing so). Also, I find it strange and off-putting that you would not directly address the content of the document that clearly originated from the said assembly, and also odd that you would claim to have examined it and not seen that it indeed appears to come from that organization. And any editor, yourself included, can see that I never removed any inline citation concerning Meyer's quotes. Lastly, I wouldn't call slander, false accusations, and a hateful, reckless, venomous discourse to be considered "passion". Not only is such behavior ungodly and outright sinful, but it also violates Wikipedia's policies. Look, frankly I don't care what you do with this article or what your agenda is. I merely answered your false allegations with the truth—I'm not here to debate you about edits, or my integrity either. Wikipedia is not the word of YHVH. YHVH knows the truth about me, and also the truth about you, and what YHVH sees is my true concern. And being falsely accused, I am in good company, as my Savior was falsely accused at least 39 times in the gospels. I have rebuked your false accusations once, but I am not held captive by your perceptions of myself or reality in general. In other words, think what you want. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Good day. If I have wrongly accused you I apologise. I'm willing to overlook this. Though I am humored that you would call my concerns that I have raised as 'sinful'. I am always passionate whenever I see quotes from Elder Jacob O. Meyer, misquoted. It's happened before and frankly I have grown weary of it. The scripture says in Proverbs 13:5 that the righteous hate lying. I was just annoyed that's all. Anyways, lets try to work together to improve the article. So...my concern can be seen by the headings: Jesus, Yeshua, Yahushua and Criticism are the main headings. The article doesn't explain the name Yahshua but goes on to explain these other headings which is wrong. They have their own articles and that's why I'm thinking of reverting the article back to a previous version when the name of Yahshua was explained. In Citer (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So I have created the hebrew letters for the name Yahshua (יהושע). I'll use these in the article rather the variations with vowel points. Also WikiEditorial101 Respectfully, I am waiting for you to change back the quote and put in the correct source that was originally in there and remove the source from the Evangel AOY. In Citer (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Well I have left it 5 days and no-one has changed the article back to correct the errors so I have reverted the page to an older version. WikiEditorial101 I have left you a message on your talk page. In Citer (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms in the article of Yahshua

I will be reverting the page to an older version of the article. Seems like I'm the only one using the talk page but WP:LEAD clearly shows we don't need the following in the lead: "The pronunciation Yahshua is philologically impossible in the original Hebrew and has no support in archeological findings, such as the Dead Sea scrolls or inscriptions, nor in rabbinical texts as a form of Joshua. As a result, the prospect of Yahshua being the originally name of Jesus is not seriously entertained in academic circles. Usage and/or support of the name Yahshua is largely restricted to religious groups that are a part of (or otherwise associated with) the Sacred Name and Hebrew Roots movements which, among other things, advocate for the preservation of Hebrew sacred names in translations of the Bible." The lead should be succinct. There has been added a place for criticisms of the name Yahshua further down in the article. The Assemblies of Yahweh is the main group that uses the name Yahshua. It does appear in the Bible in the name of the Israelite general normally transliterated as Joshua. There is no J sound in Hebrew. In Citer (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@In Citer: Please gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Wikipedia:Criticism is against your edits. Your edits also smack of WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. Removing its patent fringeness from the lead section is a token thereof. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon tgeorgescu. I've already stated my concerns. Most people call Jacob, James, even though his name was most certainly Jacob. The criticism in the lead is deceitful. The Israelite general had the same name as the Messiah. It wasn't Jesus, yet I don't see people going on the Jesus article and stating this. His name was Yahshua. The article that I restored proved that. Again there is no J sound in Hebrew. His name couldn't have been Joshua. In Citer (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@In Citer: That's a WP:FRINGE view. I ask you to desist from pushing fringe POVs inside Wikipedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, I thought I should add that you've removed from the etymology section the actual scripture from Matthew 1 explaining the name. For an explanation of a Biblical name it seems strange that edits made to the article have removed mention of what the Bible actually says. Further, this article is just a criticism magnet of the name Yahshua. Not just in the lead, but also throughout the article. That isn't how Wikipedia works, see WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. In terms of WP:FRINGE, there being no J sound in Hebrew is not a fringe view. In Citer (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@In Citer: See WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:GEVAL. Your version is full of WP:OR claims. It's also WP:FRINGE and I am asking you again to desist from fringe POV-pushing.

If they want a pulpit, I suggest here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion: except for a small number of fringe believers, neither scholars nor theologians bought into the idea that Jesus Christ's real name was Yahshua. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is certainly more popularity with the name Yeshua, which is nearly identical to the name Yahshua with the exception of 'Ye' used instead of 'Yah'. For there to be so much animosity against a name that only has this difference is puzzling. Even so, the lead needs changing for a start. It contains information that is unsourced and just an opinion, specifically: "The pronunciation Yahshua is philologically impossible in the original Hebrew and has no support in archeological findings, such as the Dead Sea scrolls or inscriptions, nor in rabbinical texts as a form of Joshua. As a result, the prospect of Yahshua being the originally name of Jesus is not seriously entertained in academic circles. Usage and/or support of the name Yahshua is largely restricted to religious groups that are a part of (or otherwise associated with) the Sacred Name and Hebrew Roots movements which, among other things, advocate for the preservation of Hebrew sacred names in translations of the Bible." Anyone have a problem if I remove this paragraph? In Citer (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CITELEAD. I have reported it at WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And... most evidence for the name Yahshua has been removed from the article? Are you kidding me? What evidence can there be for a WP:FRINGE name of Jesus, concocted by a bunch of cultists in the 20th century? Wikipedia is WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, so it admits no such evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Blasphemy

@IP: Wikipedia has no ban on blasphemy, see WP:CENSOR for details. So, it is irrelevant if you consider the article blasphemous. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)