Talk:Yahshua

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

text: 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)
thread_title: 2005

message: 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)
thread_title: Letter "j"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits and reverts April 2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Very biased article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Questioning Claims about Greek: God or translator? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hebrew 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaning up this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. Thanks.Editor2020 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahshua  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correcting / Balancing Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On the sources used here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have reverted to an earlier version that is better. Editor2020 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first section must be rewritten or removed : no understandable syntax and contradict knowledge (July 2020)