Yashua vs. Isa

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

We CAN know what the word in Aramaic was and we DO know what it was. If you read the links he provided, you'll see that without a doubt, Yeshua is the Aramaic and merely a shortened version of the Hebrew name.

His point is that Allah should know Jesus' accurate name in any language, but Allah appears to misunderstand or mistranslate on this one.

No, MBL "can" "may" "might" is only speculations.

He didn't say "can", "may", "might", he showed what it is and linked it or documented it. Why do you suddenly need to get this into the grey "can", may" or "might" land?

The NT is in Greek and its Iesous there.

That is the Greek word.

To say that NT was originally in Aramaic would then beg the question:

That wasn't said, so your question isn't valid and for some odd reason, you still don't even know the point that is being made. Obviously, the Quran didn't use Jesus, so it wasn't using the Greek, so the theory was that Isa had something to do with Jesus' native tongue, which was supposed to be Aramaic, like MastaBlaster tried to say. But this ends up not working either

Where are they?

Irrelevent question because it never said it was written in Aramaic. But this begs a good question. See, sometimes, when it suits your ideas or needs, you can put your thinking cap on and be logical. Asking where the Aramaic scriptures are at is a good, logical question even if it ends up being irrelevant to this particular discussion. So how come you don't ask the same logical question when Muslims claim the real Biblical scriptures get corrupted and lost? Ask the same question. Where are they? Why don't we find one single trace of them?

It would indicate the careless on the part of Christians about their Holy Scripture in its original language. If they were careless about their Holy Scripture who is not to say that they were careless about Jesus name too? Not to mention what happened to the real Gospel of Jesus?

You don't even understand what the Gospels are. They never were supposed to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah like the Quran "claim" to be. Jesus never mentioned any book and never commanded that one be written. In fact, he even said that in the new covenant "the law shall be written on the hearts of men". All that the Gospels were, was the retelling of the story of Jesus, supposedly according to witnesses which could even be the apostles themselves. And it's natural to assume that people would tell of what happened to Jesus and what he said. This is why nobody ever even attempted to create a Gospel named "Gospel of Jesus" or even "Gospel of God" and instead, they were all named "Gospel of "apostle's name"". So that alone should tell you something right there. And they are all written in third person narrative form. The Quran is in first person form where it is supposed to be Allah talking directly to you. The Gospels are all in third person narrative form where a narrator is telling you a story. So it's interesting that the Quran doesn't say the scriptures are entirely corrupted it onlky says they changed some of the words and their places. but if there was an orginal Gospel, penned in heaven, then it would be in first person form like the Quran. Therefore, not just some parts of this would have hasd to have been altered, every single verse would have had to have been altered to change it from first person form to third person. Can you understand the problem with the claim as it was made? Muhammad obviously didn't.

See how Muhammad didn't even really understand what the Gospels were supposed to be? If he did, he wouldn't have made the charge the way he did and would have said the entire thing was rewritten. Yet another example that we're talking about Muhammad, not God.

[fudgy]

He didn't say "can", "may", "might", he showed what it is and linked it or documented it. Why do you suddenly need to get this into the grey "can", may" or "might" land?

No that is what you said. What I've said is that can he document this from Aramaic NT? How is he going to do that exactly when its written in Greek?

That is the Greek word.

Right, that is in the original NT which is written in Greek, and see how he says that the Arabic Iesa maybe was translated from Greek Iesous.

That wasn't said, so your question isn't valid and for some odd reason, you still don't even know the point that is being made. Obviously, the Quran didn't use Jesus, so it wasn't using the Greek, so the theory was that Isa had something to do with Jesus' native tongue, which was supposed to be Aramaic, like MastaBlaster tried to say. But this ends up not working either

If it wasn't said then you don't have Yeshua rather Iesous, and Aksel says that Iesa might have been translated from Iesous. Also note that Biblical prophet Joshua was not translated as Jesus. Again, man its just names in different languages. The Biblical concept of Jesus is very disturbing. I would rather take my luck with the Quran.

Irrelevent question because it never said it was written in Aramaic. But this begs a good question. See, sometimes, when it suits your ideas or needs, you can put your thinking cap on and be logical. Asking where the Aramaic scriptures are at is a good, logical question even if it ends up being irrelevant to this particular discussion. So how come you don't ask the same logical question when Muslims claim the real Biblical scriptures get corrupted and lost? Ask the same question. Where are they? Why don't we find one single trace of them?

It's very much related if you admit that NT was in Aramaic. In order to argue for Yeshua one would have to assume that NT was written in Aramaic and not in Greek; so the question was very related. Well, if they are corrupted and lost how are you going to find it? The fact that there isn't any Aramaic NT is a good start?

You don't even understand what the Gospels are. They never were supposed to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah like the Quran "claim" to be. Jesus never mentioned any book and never commanded that one be written. In fact, he even said that in the new covenant "the law shall be written on the hearts of men". All that the Gospels were, was the retelling of the story of Jesus, supposedly according to witnesses which could even be the apostles themselves. And it's natural to assume that people would tell of what happened to Jesus and what he said. This is why nobody ever even attempted to create a Gospel named "Gospel of Jesus" or even "Gospel of God" and instead, they were all named "Gospel of "apostle's name"". So that alone should tell you something right there. And they are all written in third person narrative form. The Quran is in first person form where it is supposed to be Allah talking directly to you. The Gospels are all in third person narrative form where a narrator is telling you a story. So it's interesting that the Quran doesn't say the scriptures are entirely corrupted it onlky says they changed some of the words and their places. but if there was an orginal Gospel, penned in heaven, then it would be in first person form like the Quran. Therefore, not just some parts of this would have hasd to have been altered, every single verse would have had to have been altered to change it from first person form to third person. Can you understand the problem with the claim as it was made? Muhammad obviously didn't.

See how Muhammad didn't even really understand what the Gospels were supposed to be? If he did, he wouldn't have made the charge the way he did and would have said the entire thing was rewritten. Yet another example that we're talking about Muhammad, not God.

Well, now Quran claim of Bible corruption on the other hand is completely irrelevant, but I thought you said something interesting there. Yes, Torah and Quran is in first person form. And in many places the tone seems like as if it is the OT god in Quran speaking. Well actually Quran usually refers to specific Jews who changed words from their places. And it does attest that quite a bit of OT message is corrupted. Regardless, Judaism is very much similar to Islam. On the case of Christians though the main corruption is directed in crucifixion story--at the heart of its main theology! Thus indicating that Christians corruption of the Message was to an greater extent than Jews, which obviously is true. Well now you are putting your thinking cap on, but you needed to dig like one depth deeper. Just changing Bible from first person to third person form would not indicate that is completely corrupted; in fact it would indicate very little change. A complete corruption would be to completely change the words and its meaning...ie to say something like Jesus was not born of virgin but died on cross for sins of mankind.

Anyway, Quran claim is that quite a bit of OT is corrupted even though it usually refers to some specific Jews changing words from their places, which evidently accumulated into something bigger.Yet, still the Christian corruption was at much greater extent.

[Maersk]

On the case of Christians though the main corruption is directed in crucifixion story--at the heart of its main theology! Thus indicating that Christians corruption of the Message was to an greater extent than Jews, which obviously is true.

And now the Islamic show will have Muslims explain what Role Allah played in this, the Allah of the Quran; and why Allah meet with the approval of Muslims. Disturbing is the least a Muslim could say!!

What is so difficult to understand. It (cruxifixion) goes to show the evil intent humans will go to silent others for their own gains. No? If God could appear as Allah of the Quran after the death of JESUS, why can't the God of Christianity in Christianity after Jesus' death.

What corruption? I say the Quran is corrupted and I shall leave it at that. You have a problem with it?? Why!!

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

We CAN know what the word in Aramaic was and we DO know what it was. If you read the links he provided, you'll see that without a doubt, Yeshua is the Aramaic and merely a shortened version of the Hebrew name.

His point is that Allah should know Jesus' accurate name in any language, but Allah appears to misunderstand or mistranslate on this one.

No, MBL "can" "may" "might" is only speculations. The NT is in Greek and its Iesous there. To say that NT was originally in Aramaic

Nobody said that. Would you please read properly? They said Jesus used to speak in Aramaic. Nobody ever said a Gospel was written in Aramaic. How many times does this qualification need repeating to you?

would then beg the question: Where are they? It would indicate the careless on the part of Christians

See above. you are clueless of the discussion.

It was never written in Aramaic so there was no carelessness.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Irrelevent question because it never said it was written in Aramaic. But this begs a good question. See, sometimes, when it suits your ideas or needs, you can put your thinking cap on and be logical. Asking where the Aramaic scriptures are at is a good, logical question even if it ends up being irrelevant to this particular discussion. So how come you don't ask the same logical question when Muslims claim the real Biblical scriptures get corrupted and lost? Ask the same question. Where are they? Why don't we find one single trace of them?

It's very much related if you admit that NT was in Aramaic.

But it wasn't and nobody said it was. What does it take to get it through your head? What is the major block (or even cinder block) in your head?

In order to argue for Yeshua one would have to assume that NT was written in Aramaic and not in Greek; so the question was very related.

dummy, he's trying to discover the origin of Isa, and since it's not in any of the Greek writings, then some, like MastaBlaster suggest that it came from his native tongue of Aramaic. He did not suggest the bible was written in Aramaic, he simply suggested that the Quran chose the Aramaic because that was the language Jesus spoke in, not the language that any of the gospels were written in. But it turns out, that the Aramaic of Jesus does not support the Quran or the name Isa, and this was what aksel was pointing out. you seem to be stuck on the notion that there had to have been a Gosdpel written while Jesus was alive and therefore written in Aramaic, but that's utter nonsense and there's no scriptural or historical evidence for this at all that I am aware of..

Well, if they are corrupted and lost how are you going to find it? The fact that there isn't any Aramaic NT is a good start?

How about if we instead say they're not lost and Muhammad was lying when he leveled the charge and that he had to make this charge because the scriptures didn't correctly suit his prophethood? Do you think that's even remotely possible? Of course you don't.

You don't even understand what the Gospels are. They never were supposed to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah like the Quran "claim" to be. Jesus never mentioned any book and never commanded that one be written. In fact, he even said that in the new covenant "the law shall be written on the hearts of men". All that the Gospels were, was the retelling of the story of Jesus, supposedly according to witnesses which could even be the apostles themselves. And it's natural to assume that people would tell of what happened to Jesus and what he said. This is why nobody ever even attempted to create a Gospel named "Gospel of Jesus" or even "Gospel of God" and instead, they were all named "Gospel of "apostle's name"". So that alone should tell you something right there. And they are all written in third person narrative form. The Quran is in first person form where it is supposed to be Allah talking directly to you. The Gospels are all in third person narrative form where a narrator is telling you a story. So it's interesting that the Quran doesn't say the scriptures are entirely corrupted it onlky says they changed some of the words and their places. but if there was an orginal Gospel, penned in heaven, then it would be in first person form like the Quran. Therefore, not just some parts of this would have hasd to have been altered, every single verse would have had to have been altered to change it from first person form to third person. Can you understand the problem with the claim as it was made? Muhammad obviously didn't.

See how Muhammad didn't even really understand what the Gospels were supposed to be? If he did, he wouldn't have made the charge the way he did and would have said the entire thing was rewritten. Yet another example that we're talking about Muhammad, not God.

Well, now Quran claim of Bible corruption on the other hand is completely irrelevant, but I thought you said something interesting there

It was just an additional example of the same pattern of errors

. Yes, Torah and Quran is in first person form.

No, the Torah is essentially wtitten in third person narrative form with the exception of a few smalll spots. Do you understand what third person narrative means? For example, in Genesis, it says "and then God did and then God said.....". That's third person narrative where a narrator is telling you what God did and said. The Quran, however, says "then I or We did and then I or We said". See the difference? And you're telling me the Torah is in first person form just like the Quran. Boy, the m,ore you look at this, the more you're going to see the big fat problem lying underneath.

And in many places the tone seems like as if it is the OT god in Quran speaking.

Forget about tone fudgy as that is not the issue. See above.

Well actually Quran usually refers to specific Jews who changed words from their places. And it does attest that quite a bit of OT message is corrupted.

It only says some of them. And in other places, Muhammad attests that there is truth left in the books they possessed during his day because he told them that he is found in their books, not their past books because he asks them to look, which has to mean in their present books. But if they were originally penned in heaven and therefore in first person form as something penned in heaven can't have a narrator, then the entire thing would have to be rewritten to change it from first person to third. Wow!!!

Regardless, Judaism is very much similar to Islam.

I agree. Seems like Jesus tried to evolve the religion to the next step and Muhammad contradicted him all over the place and sent us right back into the opposite direction of blind obedience over compassion and understanding. I'm glad you brought that up.

On the case of Christians though the main corruption is directed in crucifixion story--at the heart of its main theology! Thus indicating that Christians corruption of the Message was to an greater extent than Jews,

One of the most important goals of Islam was to wipe Christianity out and give Jesus a nice 16 gun salute (so to speak) and mention some really nice words about him before it essentially buries him by burying his words and replacing them with the Quran. How are we really supposed to know anything of any detail about what Jesus thought, taught, etc......from the Quran? We're not. The Quran was designed to bury Jesus' wisdom and replace it with an imposter Jesus who just so happens to sound a heck of a lot like good old Mo himself. Hmmm.......Any Christian worth a salt can see through this obvious scam attempt in two seconds.

which obviously is true.

How can you say anything is obvious when you often aren't even following the crux of a conversation? Sometimes i'm not sure if you even know what you are agreeing to.

Well now you are putting your thinking cap on,

Oh brother. The black kettle and the pot.

but you needed to dig like one depth deeper. Just changing Bible from first person to third person form would not indicate that is completely corrupted;

You would have to rewrite every single third person verse and change it to first person, dummy. This would practically constitute and entire rewrite, not just changing some of the words and their places. But Muhammad didn't realize this little problem which is why he made this error in his little cockamanie bull story. Often, Muhammad did not think things out thoroughly enough, and maybe that's why you don't either

in fact it would indicate very little change. A complete corruption would be to completely change the words and its meaning...ie to say something like Jesus was not born of virgin but died on cross for sins of mankind.

That sort of corruption you're talking about is what the Quran attempted. Wipe the old scriptures out and retell the story and change things as you need them. Like, if Muhammad needed to be part of the Abrahamic line, then the covenant has to switch to Ishmael and it is he who God asked Abraham to sacrifice.

Anyway, Quran claim is that quite a bit of OT is corrupted even though it usually refers to some specific Jews changing words from their places,

Verse? You don't have it.

which evidently accumulated into something bigger.Yet, still the Christian corruption was at much greater extent.

The Gospels are entirely in third person form, and don't you find it kind of odd that nobody ever attempted to call their corrupted version the Gospel of Jesus? Why was it always that they clearly said Gospel of Luke or Mark instead of ever even attempting to say Gospel of Jesus? Think about that. Muhammad had no idea of what the scriptures he was trashing were really supposed to be in the first place. So Mo exposes his ignorance of Chriatianity yet again while masquerading as God's direct, letter for letter messenger. I'm sure Allah understood what the Gospels were supposed to be very well.

[ixolite]

Not to mention what happened to the real Gospel of Jesus?

Yet another mohammedan who does not understand the role of Jesus in Christianity. There was never a gospel of Jesus, because Jesus himself WAS the word/gospel.

John 1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Not to mention what happened to the real Gospel of Jesus?

Yet another mohammedan who does not understand the role of Jesus in Christianity. There was never a gospel of Jesus, because Jesus himself WAS the word/gospel.

John 1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

These people don't even have the faintest idea what they are objecting to and it's all Muhammad's fault (PUBH) because he had the same exact misunderstandings as even his followers today have. These people just don't get it and I don't think they ever will

[The Cat]

The root for Isa is the same as Yeshua or even Joshua. It comes from the Phoenician IES (I for The One and ES for Light),
a sun healing god of old. In turns it came to be associated with the Greek goddess Ieso, daughter of Asclepius and sister of Panacea.

It's also the root for the Roman Bacchus and his abbreviated IHS. It could very well be the origin of our yes in English!

We should take note that Philo Judaeus wrote Iessaei when talking about the Essenes, so Iessenes is closer an appellation.

We tend to forget the Phoenician axial role in Antiquity, particularly concerning alphabetical words and overseas commerce.

The Phoenician god Eshmoun is most probably the direct link with their IES of old, but we find it too in the Celtic Esus!

[Aksel Ankersen]

The root for Isa is the same as Yeshua or even Joshua. It comes from the Phoenician IES (I for The One and ES for Light),

No mate, it isn't. Seriously. Read the thread.

[The Cat]

The root for Isa is the same as Yeshua or even Joshua. It comes from the Phoenician IES (I for The One and ES for Light),

No mate, it isn't. Seriously. Read the thread.

I've already discussed this matter in the old forum, which you might find interesting:

Isa, by caracas (with great incepts from THHuxley).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12759" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeshu or Isa, by Quetzalcoatl (with Denis Giron).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bye...

[Aksel Ankersen]

THHuxley made the same argument as me:

Actually, as far as I can tell Jesus real name was the Hebrew Yeshua.

In Greek it was transliterated to Iesous.

The Greek was transliterated to the Latin Iesus.

Y'shua is basically a hypocoristic of Y'hoshua (e.g. Joshua often gets rendered Y'shua in Aramaic translations, especially Syriac, and Yashua in Arabic translations). Some have speculated that the name `Eesa came from "Eesho", an alternate (though later) pronunciation of the Aramaic Y'shua (i.e. Eesho and Y'shua are spelled the exact same way), but this is difficult due to the transitions from yaa to ayn that would be necessarry for such an evolution. An alternative (though generally rejected) theory is that `Eesa is related to Esau (the biblical figure), and this is interesting since their spellings are so similar in Arabic.

Muslims have tried to claim that `Eesa is actually historically accurate (and therefore in itself a miracle; Shibli Zaman once being one of the more prominent defenders of this position). A very long and a bit repetitive (though still interesting) discusion on the subject can be found here:

I already explained why the transposition of the Ayn is problematic, and on the second page covered why Esau is an unlikely candidate for the name of the original Jesus.

By far the most likely explanation is that the Arabs got Isa by way of the Greeks; in doing so they corrupted Jesus' name, because Greek is not a Semitic language and a direct letter to letter correspondence with Hebrew is not possible, whereas Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic abjads and the letters from one correspond directly to the letters of another (with a few exceptions such as Samekh, Khaa versus Kaph, and Siin vs. Sheen).

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Aksel, if your idea is correct, is it really a problem that the Quran chose to reference the Greek rather than the Semetic? Can one could use the excuse that the Greek was referenced because more people would be familiar with it? Would the people actually be more familiar with it? Good common sense questions to think about.

Or, of course, we can say that Muhammad used the name that was read to him from the Greek and God was not guiding him at all, but rather, once again, Muhammad's hand puppet, Allah, was Muhammad himself.

[Aksel Ankersen]

Aksel, if your idea is correct, is it really a problem that the Quran chose to reference the Greek rather than the Semetic? Can one could use the excuse that the Greek was referenced because more people would be familiar with it? Would the people actually be more familiar with it? Good common sense questions to think about.

I'd say yes, because it would be possible to write Yasua's name exactly with Arabic letters, but not with Greek letters - Semitic Abjads have a close correspondence, whereas other Indo European alphabets don't.

That's why we have different approximations of Arabic words in English: Shia vs Shiite, Quran vs Koran etc.

[The Cat]

THHuxley made the same argument as me:

Actually, as far as I can tell Jesus real name was the Hebrew Yeshua.

In Greek it was transliterated to Iesous.

The Greek was transliterated to the Latin Iesus.

By far the most likely explanation is that the Arabs got Isa by way of the Greeks; in doing so they corrupted Jesus' name, because Greek is not a Semitic language and a direct letter to letter correspondence with Hebrew is not possible, whereas Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic abjads and the letters from one correspond directly to the letters of another (with a few exceptions such as Samekh, Khaa versus Kaph, and Siin vs. Sheen).[/color]

You will notice that Huxley never challenged my Phoenician IES argument, maybe because he was quite aware of the Ugaritic civilization.
Only a Phoenician origin could explain the Gaelic Eesu, the Celtic Esus, the Egyptian Iusa (epithet for Horus way before Osiris came in).
We shall also notice that He'Zeus Christos was a Pythagorean epithet, from the ''Jezeus'' (pure essence) referring to Chrishna (Krishna)!

About Isa, I concur with the scholar Alphonse Mingana that it has a Syriac origin.

Was the Qur'an first in Arabic (in Old Resource Center):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 086#800086" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In my opinion, however, Syriac is much more useful than Hebrew and Ethiopic as the former language seems to have a much more pronounced influence on the style of the Kur'an. The only Hebrew textual influence I was able to discover bore on the Biblical Hebraisms already found in the Syriac Peshitta. (...) In this connection we may state with some confidence that taking the number 100 as a unit of the foreign influences on the style and terminology of the Kur'an, Ethiopic would represent about 5 per cent of the total, Hebrew about 10 per cent, the Greco-Roman languages about 10 per cent, Persian about 5 per cent, and Syriac (including Aramaic and Palestinian Syriac) about 70 per cent. (...)

(About Isa used for Jesus in the Kur'an)
So far as the word 'Isa (the name given to Jesus in the Kur'an) is concerned, it was apparently in use before Muhammad, and it does not seem probable that it was coined by him. A monastery in South Syria, near the territory of the Christian Ghassanid Arabs, bore in A.D. 571 the name 'Isaniyah, that is to say, "of the followers of Jesus," i.e. of the Christians. See fol. 84b of the Brit. Mus. Syr. MS. Add., 14, 602, which is of the end of the sixth, or at the latest of the beginning of the seventh century. The Mandean pronunciation A 'Iso, is of no avail as the guttural 'é has in Mandaic the simple pronunciation of a hamzah. The Mandean pronunciation is rather reminiscent of 'Iso, as the name of Jesus was written in the Marcionite Gospel used by the Syrians.

Also interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isa_(name" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There is a major discrepancy between the Hebrew and Muslim Arabic forms of this name, since the original Hebrew form of this name has the voiced pharyngeal `Ayin or `Ayn consonant at the end of the name (as does Christian Arabic يسوع yasū`), while the Muslim Arabic form عيسى `īsā has the `Ayn at the beginning of the name. For this reason, some claim the Arabic name Isa is related to the Biblical name Esau (which begins with a pharyngeal), but it is also similar in the vowels to the Aramaic version of Jesus, viz. Eesho (Aramaic forms of the name, however, still have the voiced pharyngeal `Ayn consonant at the end of the name).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

The claim that the form Yeshua is the original name for the religious figure otherwise known as Jesus in western Christianity, is a subject of debate. The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates from the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs. In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. (It was also used to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun--Deut. 32:44.) (...)

Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem considered the Greek form Iesous to be the original, even going so far as to interpret it as a true Greek name and not simply a transliteration of Hebrew. (A similar situation is seen in the use of the true Greek name Simon as a translation of the Hebrew name Shim'on in texts such as Sirach.) Eusebius related it to the Greek root meaning "to heal" thus making it a variant of Jason meaning healer. (...)

An argument in favor of the Hebrew form ישוע Yeshua is that the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200 AD) and the Peshitta preserves this same spelling using the equivalent Aramaic letters ܝܫܘܥ (Yēšū‘) to the Hebrew letters of Yeshua (Syriac does not use the 'furtive' pathach, so the 'a' vowel is not used). This is still the spelling and pronunciation used in the West Syriac dialect, whereas East Syriac has rendered the pronunciation of the same letters Išô‘. These texts were translated from the Greek, but the name is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form because its "sh" sound is not expressed in the Greek (although the Greek has a letter sounding like "s"), and ends with the pharyngeal ‘ayin sound, also not found in Greek. It can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual connection to the Aramaic-speaking apostles and disciples of Jesus, and thus were able to accurately preserve the actual name used for him. (...)

The Arabic name for Jesus used by Christians, Yasū‘, derives from Yeshua. However, the Qur'an and other Muslim sources instead use a traditional Islamic title عيسى `Īsā, which can be transliterated as עִישָׂי (the second ya is silent) and is similar to the Arabic form عيسو, Isu, of עֵשָׂו ‘Esaw, that is, the biblical patriarch Esau. Some Islamic scholars argue that it derives from the East-Syriac pronunciation Isho‘. However, the Aramaic has the letter ‘Ayin only at the end, whereas the Arabic has its equivalent letter, ‘Ayn, only at the beginning. This sort of transposing of the Aramaic ‘Ayin is linguistically improbable.

Still I maintain that the remote origin for all those names come from IES, the Phoenician deified principle of the healing sun.

Take care...
Bye.