Interestingly, the word "Yeshua" (meaning "safety" in the Hebrew language), whom Christians attempt to proselytize their theories of a "man-god" Jesus by saying this name of his meant "Salvation", does not have a static definition of "Salvation" but also means "Saved".

Another problem is that the type of "safety" which "yasha`" refers to is in a very worldly sense, and mostly having to do with being saved from the hands of Israel's worldly enemies. Every single usage of "yasha`" in the Bible has to do with warfare and violence. There is not a single reference to deliverance from sin, or salvation of the ethereal soul. It only refers to salvation of the physical body and life.

However, there is a complete void of information linking Jesus to the name "Yeshua" in his lifetime. The Talmud was written between 300-600 A.D. Other commonly quoted books like the "Toledoth Yeshu`" were satires written to defame Christianity as late as the 10th century A.D. nearly 1000 years after Jesus. Ironically, from the disparaging writings against Jesus came the Arabic "Yaso'a" () as they are the only source for this name being attributed to Jesus in the Middle East. The Christian world is left at a loss to find a historical Jesus who fits the description given in their sadly sparse Biblical sources.

During the second Temple period (beginning 538 BC – 70 AD), Yeshua first became a known form of the name Yehoshua. All occurrences of Yeshua in the Hebrew Bible are in I Chron. 24:11, II Chron. 31:15, Ezra, and Nehemiah where it is transliterated into English as Jeshua. Two of these men (Joshua the son of Nun and Joshua the High Priest) are mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible where they are instead called Yehoshua [18] (transliterated into English as Joshua).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

JESUS, YESHUA or YAHSHUA??
-by Dr. Michael L. Brown.

The original Hebrew-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshu‘a, which is
short for yehoshu‘a (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael.
The name yeshu‘a occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Scriptures,
primarily referring to the high priest after the Babylonian exile,
called both yehoshu‘a (see, e.g., Zechariah 3:3) and, more
frequently, yeshu‘a (see, e.g., Ezra 3:2). So, Yeshua’s name was
not unusual; in fact, as many as five different men had that name
in the Old Testament.

^^^^May Allah not deform your eye, your mind, your brain, your hand, your person and all those you love. Amin.

Jesus and even the earliest Christians spoke Aramaic. Much of the Old Testament, such as the Book of Daniel, was originally in Aramaic though a large bulk of those codices are lost forever. Neither the Greek of the Textus Receptus upon which the New Testament is based, nor the Hebrew of the standardized Tanach upon which the Old Testament is loosely based were their native tongues.

", portions of the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic, Jesus and the Apostles also spoke this language."
"In the early Christian era, Aramaic divided into east and West varieties. West Aramaic dialects includ Nabataean (formerly spoken in parts of Arabia), Palmyrene (spoken in Palmyra, which was northeast of Damascus), Palestinian-Christian, and Judeo-Aramaic. West Aramaic is still spoken in a small number of villages in Lebanon."
[Encyclopedia Britannica, Reference Index I, "Aramaic Language", page 476]

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus' name in Aramaic?

"Eesho M'sheekha" meaning "Jesus the Messiah".

""- Syriac. Syriac is a late variant of Aramaic widespread in Christendom, thus coined "Christian Aramaic".
""- Aramaic. Taken directly from the "Peshitta".
" "- Aramaic. Peshitta; with diacritical marks.

The "Peshitta" is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.

Thus, Jesus would have even called himself "Eesho" or more specifically "Eesa" since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter "shin" as "seen". Interestingly enough we find a few striking parallels in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic which tell volumes and uncover astounding facts.

From the above we have to ask the question, why is it that major issues in Christianity are in doubt and.or have been destroyed or become
extinct? This only Proves what Muslims have been saying, " the Christian scripture have been loss or corrupted" to imagine that even Jesus a.s name is another albatross is very worrisome indeed.

Allah Alone is Enough as Witness of Himself, for Muhammad (AS).

And those who are saying that Quran is not correct, we see Issa in reality.

Bookmarked!

*

The word "`EESA" () in the Qur'an comes from "`EESHO" () in Aramaic, a language which predates Hebrew by several hundred years and never had any etymological ties with the Hebrew derivative "YESHUA" () or even the word "E'SAU" ()
*

Since the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke and taught was Aramaic, the Qur'an have accurately taken his name in Aramaic and not the Hebrew derivative, "YESHUA" ()
*

The name "YASO'A" () for Jesus (pbuh) in the Arabic Bible is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew name "YESHUA" () and is therefore fallacious to claim that this is the correct Arabic name of Jesus (pbuh) since as originally said, Hebrew is not Jesus' native tongue. Therefore, the Noble Verses which clearly states that the Qur'an is in pure Arabic, remains unchallenged.[7]
*

Similarity in sound of words does not mean that they are the one and the same word, more so since the author of the charge fail to explain how a word in Sanskrit (Indo-European language, sub-class Old Indo-Aryan) is able to exist in Arabic (Hamito-Semitic language, sub-class Southern Central Semitic)
*

Since we have firmly established that the word is etymologically related to Aramaic, and the author of the charge neither offered any proof of the influence of Hinduism in Arabia nor how did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could have "copied" the name "`EESA" () from Hindu Scriptures, logic demands that his claim is unacceptable

Thus, the Qur'an's historical accuracy in its usage of "`Eesa" rather than the Arabic "Yaso'a" for the name of Jesus is indeed noteworthy to say the very least. "Yaso'a" is actually based upon a problematic Hebrew nomenclature for Jesus which is littered with disagreement and controversy. There is no historical agreement or resemblance on what Jesus' name was in Hebrew or even if those references are indeed referring to Jesus! There have been a plethora of explanations attempting to rectify this variance in the Hebrew versions of Jesus' name, but all are based on conjecture and none are based on historicity or textual evidence. All such flawed etymological gymnastics are already defeated by the mere fact that Hebrew was not even Jesus' language. Indeed, the burden of proof is upon the Christian world to produce documented evidence of Jesus' existence from his own time period. As God has promised in His Word:

"And from each people shall We draw a witness, and We shall say: "Produce your proof"; then shall they know that the Truth is in Allah (alone), and the (lies) which they invented will leave them in the lurch." (al-Qur'an, Sura' Al-Qashash (28):75)

Lol!seriously I do not know the reason why you muslims go through the pains of trying to find faults,una get time for ur hand shior

These are known facts that affect xtianity in no way, no way at all.

@Vadexcool

Your article has actually raised no solid contention. Are you saying that xtian don't know that Jesus spoke Aramaic? We know!

Are you saying that the name yeshua is called differently in different languages? Offcourse we know!

Are you saying that the name Yeshua does not mean 'salvation' and yet meant 'saved' or 'safety'? Are those two words not derivatives of 'salvation'?

Just give yourself rest, you have no point here.

^^^^
you really made a joke of yourself---kindly read the thread and try again later lol!

vedaxcool:

*

The word "`EESA" () in the Qur'an comes from "`EESHO" () in Aramaic, a language which predates Hebrew by several hundred years and never had any etymological ties with the Hebrew derivative "YESHUA" () or even the word "E'SAU" ()
*

Since the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke and taught was Aramaic, the Qur'an have accurately taken his name in Aramaic and not the Hebrew derivative, "YESHUA" ()
*

The name "YASO'A" () for Jesus (pbuh) in the Arabic Bible is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew name "YESHUA" () and is therefore fallacious to claim that this is the correct Arabic name of Jesus (pbuh) since as originally said, Hebrew is not Jesus' native tongue. Therefore, the Noble Verses which clearly states that the Qur'an is in pure Arabic, remains unchallenged.[7]
*

Similarity in sound of words does not mean that they are the one and the same word, more so since the author of the charge fail to explain how a word in Sanskrit (Indo-European language, sub-class Old Indo-Aryan) is able to exist in Arabic (Hamito-Semitic language, sub-class Southern Central Semitic)
*

Since we have firmly established that the word is etymologically related to Aramaic, and the author of the charge neither offered any proof of the influence of Hinduism in Arabia nor how did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could have "copied" the name "`EESA" () from Hindu Scriptures, logic demands that his claim is unacceptable

Thus, the Qur'an's historical accuracy in its usage of "`Eesa" rather than the Arabic "Yaso'a" for the name of Jesus is indeed noteworthy to say the very least. "Yaso'a" is actually based upon a problematic Hebrew nomenclature for Jesus which is littered with disagreement and controversy. There is no historical agreement or resemblance on what Jesus' name was in Hebrew or even if those references are indeed referring to Jesus! There have been a plethora of explanations attempting to rectify this variance in the Hebrew versions of Jesus' name, but all are based on conjecture and none are based on historicity or textual evidence.[size=18pt] All such flawed etymological gymnastics are already defeated by the mere fact that Hebrew was not even Jesus' language[/size]. Indeed, the burden of proof is upon the Christian world to produce documented evidence of Jesus' existence from his own time period. As God has promised in His Word:

"And from each people shall We draw a witness, and We shall say: "Produce your proof"; then shall they know that the Truth is in Allah (alone), and the (lies) which they invented will leave them in the lurch." (al-Qur'an, Sura' Al-Qashash (28):75)

The question remains Why is they confusion in every step of Christianity, a religion filled with Doubts and outright falsehood, If they-the Christians - do not even know the real name of Jesus-EESHO, then how can they claim to be rightly Guided.