Warm greetings.

I would like to thank you for all the likes, shares, and comments under the previous published video. It’s very important for our channel to grow, which allows us to reach even more people. In the name of our Lord Yeshu, thank you!

I encourage you to explore the other materials on our website yeshu.blog . You will find many interesting topics there that are sure to capture your interest. they

If you receive the gift of faith in the name of our Lord Yeshu, take the next step and contact me to be immersed in the name of Yeshu. You can find contact details on our website or simply write on Messenger.

I’ll start with how I arrived at the name Yeshu. First, I understood that the name Jehovah is a false name. I was afraid of offending God, so I treated this name with great respect. However, when I discovered that „Jehovah” is an offensive name, I stopped using it and separated myself not only from the Jehovah’s Witnesses but also from the very sound and concept of God hidden under this name. Why? Because „Jehovah” was supposedly derived from the verb chawach, which would suggest the forms Jehwach/Yahwach, not Jehowach. There is also the verb chowach, which means „to destroy, to confuse” – „destroyer, confuser”. This made me realize how important it is not to make a mistake when it comes to the name – whether it’s God’s or, as I believe, Christ’s. The Holy Scriptures say: „whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How are they to call on the One in whom they have not believed?” And I would add: how are they to call on a name they do not know, or one that was falsely given to them, as with „Jehovah”?

This became a matter of utmost importance to me, so I began searching. Then I discovered something peculiar: many people translate this name, referring to Hebrew, but each one differently. I came across websites where, very convincingly letter by letter, it was explained that it should be pronounced „Jehowach” – I believed it, and started using it. Later I found other studies: equally confident authors, equally detailed arguments, but a different result – Jehowoshuach, I can’t remember exactly. This was almost 20 years ago. But to this day, I still remember the striking impression: everyone says something different, everyone is 100% sure, everyone would „bet their hand on it”, and I don’t want to make a mistake, I don’t want to be misled. So I began thinking about how to really determine what the name of Christ was. I wanted to pray to Him – I already understood that this was a condition for salvation – but how can you „address” a prayer if you don’t know the right name?

I came up with a simple idea: today people can be wrong, lie, mislead, build their own theories, or seek fame. But there were those who definitely knew how the name of Christ sounded – the Apostles. They left records in Greek. The prophets earlier gave the same name (Yoshua/Yeshue) in Hebrew. So it’s enough to check which letters appear in the Hebrew form and which in the Greek, and then overlap this data – then we get closer to the correct pronunciation. For me, the most important thing was how the Apostles pronounced the name, because they served Christ and proclaimed His name. Christ Himself chose Paul to carry His name to the ends of the earth – so Paul had to know what it sounded like. I decided to study this. It’s a relevant topic even today, because knowing the name is a matter of utmost importance.

The Polish language, which I have spoken since childhood, turned out to be very helpful – just like Greek, it’s an inflectional language and declines words through cases. Declining through cases involves adding endings depending on the function in the sentence.

First step: Greek grammar. I knew that in Hebrew the name is written as Y, SH, U (this is of course a simplification; in practice, other marks were added). Earlier it was written slightly differently, too. But the key question was: did the Apostles use the same sounds? It turned out they did – as much as Greek allowed. For example, Greek didn’t have the „sh” sound. Nor did they use the consonantal „h” then. Meanwhile, vowels weren’t originally marked in Hebrew. Vowels can therefore be „taken” from the Greek version, because Greeks wrote down both vowels and consonants. So it was enough to combine both scripts – Hebrew and Greek – to obtain a form as faithful as possible.

So I established the Hebrew and Greek pronunciation, and then compared the whole thing with Polish and today’s common form „Yezus”(Jesus). A simple table can help when thinking about the topic of the name and about endings. In Hebrew, the name was not declined by cases, in Greek it was. And this is where the trouble starts: in the Greek nominative, an extra letter „s” appears. In the nominative we therefore have „Yesus”, but in the genitive already „Yesu”,in the dative case “Yesu”, in the accusative “Yesun” (with the added ending “-n”) and in the vocative “Yesu”. I am writing this in Latin letters to convey the pronunciation—focusing on the endings themselves. Similarly, in Polish we have: Yezu, Yezus, Yezusa, Yezusowi, Yezusa, Yezu. The shortest form—“Yezu”—is the vocative, the form used to address directly. It is an echo of Latin and Greek inflection. In Polish, however, it’s not clear why, instead of “s” (Ye-su) people began saying “z”—and in my view, that distorted the name. Hebrew distinguishes “s” and “z”, Greek distinguishes them, and so does Polish. So, if the interchangeable “s” was replaced with “z”, we already have a change in the name.

The risk is similar as with the name of God: from Jahweh/Jabwe they made “Jehovah”—from the Creator, “The One Who Brings Into Being”, they made someone associated with ruin and confusion. The difference may seem minor, but it is actually fundamental. We also remember the biblical principle: changing even a single sound is already a different name. That’s why it mattered so much to me to establish which name I should call on to attain salvation. I encourage you to do the same: if you want to be saved, determine this name—calling on the name of our Lord Yeshu is one of the conditions.

So, I determined that the basic Greek form—without any case ending—is “Yesu”. In Hebrew, it is “Yeshu”. Today, some people argue that one should add “-a” at the end. I want to talk about that today as well. It’s important to remember: a name consists of a stem (root) and an ending. That’s what I wrote in an article from 2012—it has been 14 years, and I consistently stick to what I discovered then and what I now share.

Note that the “-s” ending added in the Greek nominative case stuck to the form “Yezus”. Even if someone doesn’t pronounce “z”, only “s”, they still end with “-sus” (“Hesus”, “Jesus”—somehow that “-s” from the nominative always sneaks in). Yet, it is a flexional ending, artificially attached by the Greeks—neither Gabriel gave it to Joseph, nor Mary. Still, many took this added “-s” as the basic form and, on its basis, created further, even more distorted variants. Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples that “-s” should be removed: Saul (Greek Saulos), Paul (Paulos), Peter (Petros)—no one says “Saulos”, “Paulos”, “Petros”, because the “-s” is rightly recognized as the masculine ending in Greek. Similarly, “diabolos” became “devil”—we do not say “devilos”. Yet, for two figures, the “-s” was often not removed: Judas (even though Juda and Judas are the same name—in positive contexts it’s “Juda”, and for the traitor it’s “Judas”) and our Lord Yeshu—for him, too, this Greek “-s” was not dropped. That’s a mistake. Was it intentional? I think spiritually—yes. Satan acts intentionally. People, however, fell into habit—they repeated what they had learned since childhood.

So we move from the Greek form to the Hebrew source. That name means “Savior”—the angel says: “you shall call his name Yeshu because he will save his people from their sins”, meaning he himself is the Savior. Some say: “YHWH saves”. Maybe for Joshua that was the case—his name contains three letters of the Tetragrammaton. For Christ, however, the spelling, as it turns out, was changed to indicate his personal mission of salvation.

And here we move on to the Hebrew form—the way it’s written and what those signs mean. What does this look like in practice, which letters, which sounds, and how do we map it onto Greek notation to get a credible pronunciation? Here’s how the spelling looks.

Remember, in Hebrew we write and read from right to left. In this spelling the name therefore starts with the sign on the right: that is Yod (Y), then Shin (Sh), then Waw (which can represent the sound u, o or w/v), and finally Ayin. Ayin can be a pharyngeal consonant, but in many pronunciation traditions and in practical writing it functions as “silent”—its sound depends on the vowels added with vocalization marks. So why do we hear „u”, even though we see a letter many associate with „w”? Precisely because Waw can be both a consonant (w/v) and what’s called matres lectionis, marking a vowel (u/o). In this name, it functions as „u”. We’ll get to the details shortly,Because this is an interesting and often misunderstood issue.

Now let’s tackle a popular myth. Some claim that the name Yeshu is a curse composed of the initials of the formula Yemach shemo vezichro – „may his name and memory be erased”. This abbreviation is used in some circles as a kind of formula for avoiding pronunciation of the name, sometimes treated like a spell. In practice, this meant that when seeing the name, people would not say it but would instead recite the formula. An acronym made from the first letters of words (like EU or US) is sometimes constructed deliberately – but it’s still an external abbreviation/acronym, not a change to the meaning of the name itself. In other words, the name itself is not a curse, but rather some have attached a known formula to the letters of the name to avoid it. In such cases, instead of pronouncing the name, it is consciously replaced with another phrase – that’s a rhetorical move, not a dictionary definition.

I have seen recordings and accounts in which people from orthodox circles reacted very emotionally to just the sound of the name. These reactions – however extreme – rather confirm the aversion to pronouncing the name than that the name „in itself” is a curse. If the name were a curse, logically speaking, all you would have to do is repeat it to curse – whereas in practice, the point is not to pronounce the name and to replace it with a formula. That’s an important difference: avoiding a name is not the same as its alleged „inherent” offensiveness.

There are also stories where someone refers to the words of a rabbi: supposedly the name is pronounced only together with a curse. There are also recordings where offensive phrases are uttered next to the name – but that mainly shows the negative attitude of the speaker, not the etymology of the name. Emotions and polemical practices cannot replace linguistic analysis. It’s worth remembering this, so as not to fall under the impression that the form of the name itself is equal to a curse – that’s overinterpretation.

Let’s move on to phonetics and spelling. The alleged acronym Yemach shemo vezichro uses Vav as the conjunction ve- (w), while in the name Yeshu, Waw indicates the vowel u (shuruk). The letters might match, but the pronunciation does not. The same letter serves different functions in Hebrew: it can be a consonant or a vowel marker (matres lectionis). Additionally, Ayin was historically a guttural consonant, and in newer traditions it can be silent: vowels are specified by vocalization (dots and dashes, called niqqud). As a result, the name Yeshu (Yod–Shin–Waw–Ayin with u at the end) is not phonetically identical to the phrase from which the acronym was made.

It’s also important to keep the historical context in mind. That formula was a magical-polemical practice, recited when coming upon the name in text; it did not consist in „altering” the name, only in avoiding it. This is an external act, not an internal change. If the goal were to create a perfect acronym „from the name,” we would expect a form adjusted for „ve-” – something like Yeshve – not Yeshu. From this perspective, the thesis that the name „by definition” is a curse does not stand up to phonetic analysis or logic of use.

For the record, let’s add the rules for abbreviations in Hebrew: acronyms are marked graphically (e.g., gershayim – a double sign similar to a quotation mark before the last letter). Without such a mark, the writing does not have to be read as an acronym. Yes, someone can intentionally use the writing as an acronym, but that’s the user’s choice, not a feature of the name. That is why building the thesis of an alleged „curse meaning” from just the coincidence of letters is an abuse.

When years ago I was gathering materials, I came across an extensive study by Pastor Kaj Hansen Kjaer (a Dane), who personally leaned toward the form Yeshua, yet honestly admitted that from the point of view of history and philology, many experts indicate the correctness of the form Yeshu. In his accounts—which correspond with other research—the majority of Israelis do not automatically associate the name Yeshu with a curse; such associations tend to appear rather in certain orthodox circles and most often in the context of spelling or polemics. Unfortunately, some of the old links to these materials no longer work (typical “link rot”), but you can look for copies in internet archives.

It is worth emphasizing another aspect: in Israel, the name Yeshu is recognized as a reference to Christ—this is no secret. At the same time, in some circles, publicly professing Christian faith can encounter hostility, so some people use the variant Yeshua to avoid unnecessary tension or to not provoke disputes. Sometimes someone says “I believe in Yeshua” to avoid an immediate association with Christianity—this is a social strategy, not a philological determination. It can be understood as an attempt to “soften” the sound of the name in the context of local sensitivities.

Let’s say it clearly: the form Yeshu is not a “curse acronym.” The letters Y–Sh–W do correspond to the initials of the phrase Yemach shemo vezichro, but the phonetics of the name (Vav as u) and the rules of denoting abbreviations show that this is a later polemical interpretation, not an etymology. If anyone insists on seeing an acronym in the name, they have to mark it accordingly and use the pronunciation that matches the phrase—but this is not the case for the traditional pronunciation Yeshu.

Now a few words about the form Yeshua. This variant is sometimes seen as an attempt to break away from a sound associated with polemics and as a shift toward biblical forms like Yehoshua/Joshua. Technically, the spelling includes an Ayin, and the vowel “a” sometimes completes the vocalization. It’s important to remember that the classic Hebrew alphabet does not record vowels directly with letters; it uses vocalization marks (niqqud) and certain letters functioning as matres lectionis (e.g., Vav and Yod). Historically, Ayin had the value of a guttural consonant, however, in many contemporary traditions it is silent—hence the diversity in spelling and pronunciation.

In ancient times and later there were people bearing names with the root Y–Sh– in various variants (theophoric compounds, abbreviated forms). The differences between Yeshu and Yeshua mostly concern the manner of vocalization and spelling conventions, not any one “magical” meaning. In philological practice, whether we hear „u” or „a” at the end depends on tradition, the vocalization system, and the specific context. Thus, sometimes we will find the form with Ayin read as a, though linguistically it is more a carrier of a vowel slot than a vowel itself.

In the background of these disputes are also social and religious factors. Over the centuries, various communities developed their own habits in speaking about Yeshu: some preferred not to pronounce the name, others chose variants that neutralized tensions, others still adhered to traditional forms. It is good to separate linguistic issues (phonetics, orthography, acronyms, gershayim) from ideological disputes. When we look at the letters Yod–Shin–Vav–Ayin, we see mainly regular phenomena of Hebrew script: Vav can mean u/o, the conjunction ve- gives w/v, Ayin can be silent, and the vowels are determined by vocalization marks.

So if someone says “Yeshu is a curse,” it is worth calmly responding:

What you’re referring to is a polemical practice: an acronym from the first letters of the phrase Yemach shemo vezichro. This is an external action—not the meaning of the name.

Phonetically, the name ends with “u” (Vav as shuruk), while in the acronym Vav acts as the conjunction ve- (w/v). Same letters, different pronunciation and different function.

In Hebrew, acronyms are marked graphically (e.g., gershayim). Without this notation, we have no basis to treat any string of letters as an abbreviation.

If someone wanted a strict match between the acronym and the name, they would have to modify the pronunciation (e.g., the hypothetical Yeshve), which shows how artificial the objection is.

Historically, the formula was recited instead of the name, which in itself contradicts the thesis that the name is “by nature” a curse.

Study the topic at its source. Reach for linguistic studies, check the writing rules (niqqud, matres lectionis, gershayim), compare variants in manuscripts and in pronunciation traditions. The internet is ephemeral and many old links no longer work, but there are archives and digital libraries that allow access to reliable materials. Thanks to this, instead of relying on emotions or single anecdotes, we can discuss based on language, history, and sources. This is the best way to explain calmly, matter-of-factly, and with respect for different sensitivities, what the name Yeshu is and where the misunderstandings around it come from.

In a moment, I will show you the stages of reasoning I go through. I have studied this topic quite thoroughly, looking for reliable information on whether and how the consonant ayin was pronounced. Indeed, in Semitic traditions (e.g., Arabic), ayin is pronounced; similarly in some Jewish traditions, especially Sephardic. In Polish and English, we have no equivalent: it is a voiced pharyngeal consonant, often described as a sound “swallowed” deep in the throat. It is sometimes compared to the French “r”, but this is only an approximation and, in fact, rather imprecise, because ayin is not a vibrant but a pharyngeal sound. The key point is that we are dealing with a consonant, not a vowel.

So where does the “A” at the end of some writings come from? Firstly, pronunciation traditions and spelling changed. Jewish communities, using their local phonetic customs, had to somehow render sounds that were hard to write down. In some traditions (e.g., Ashkenazi), ayin was weakened or disappeared, and in vowel-based writing this could lead to generalizations, as if one could hear “a” at the end. It’s worth remembering that such shifts are nothing unusual. In classical and later Greek we also observe changes: beta shifted from “b” to “v”, and eta from the old long “e” eventually came closer to “i”. Letters are not eternal in their sound, and phonetic descriptions were often adapted to the realities of a given region and era.

Similar phenomena affected Hebrew, which for a long time was largely a language of liturgy, learning, and writing, while in daily speech Aramaic and Greek dominated. This favored the creation of pronunciation variants. In different regions and communities (e.g., Sephardic and Ashkenazi), the same letters were realized differently. On top of that, there is the fundamental problem: we don’t have recordings from antiquity. Reconstructions are based on indirect data: transliterations into other languages, grammatical descriptions, vocalization systems introduced later, and comparative linguistic methods. Some conclusions therefore remain hypotheses with varying degrees of probability.

In the literature, there is sometimes talk of “weak sounds” or “weak consonants” (e.g., alef, he, waw, ayin), because their role in writing is similar to carriers of vowels (matres lectionis), and their phonetic realization is weak or zero. However, this does not mean that “they are not there at all” or that “they turn into A”. In practice, ayin was often inaudible, especially at the end of a word, but its presence does not entitle one to automatically add the vowel “a”. Rather, it should be said that there is a possibility of the pharyngeal sound disappearing, sometimes accompanied by lengthening of the preceding vowel or a subtle change in timbre, and not a hard “a” at the end.

I have encountered various explanations for the shorter form of the name without a clear ayin at the end. Some claim that this results from regional speaking habits (e.g., attributed to Galilee), where endings were reduced or pharyngeal consonants simplified. In the sources, there are indeed remarks that in some dialects, pharyngeal consonants were confused or weakened. However, it should be emphasized that these are hypotheses based on indirect evidence; we are not certain about the details, and generalizations like “peasants couldn’t speak” are neither scientific nor fair. The factual conclusion is: variants existed, their geographical and social distribution was often complex, and the degree of reduction of final ayin could be significant.

An argument is sometimes cited that the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew (preserved in later transmissions) has a form without final ayin. However, let us remember that we are dealing with later copies and a tradition that may already reflect a different pronunciation and other writing habits. Therefore, broad triangulation of sources is more important: Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek, and Eastern Christian traditions.

Valuable insight is provided by the texts of Christians in the East who used Aramaic (Syriac). In Syriac writings, the name is sometimes written with final ayin, but in transliteration into the Latin alphabet, one often encounters a form without a final “a” (e.g., Yeshu/Ishoʿ). This clearly illustrates that the presence of ayin in the script does not force the vowel “a” in pronunciation, especially at the end of a word. Depending on the dialect and period, nuances are obtained: from a distinct pharyngeal sound to an almost inaudible closure or complete disappearance.

It’s also worth clarifying matters of script. The so-called square script, associated today with the Hebrew alphabet, is actually a variety of Aramaic script adopted and adapted by Jews in the Persian period and later. The earlier script (so-called paleo-Hebrew) was related to Phoenician. This is a normal course of things: writing systems interpenetrate and evolve. Similarly, Poles use the Latin alphabet adapted to Polish phonetics. The choice of script does not ennoble or denigrate a language; it is a tool that a community modifies to conveniently write its sounds.

Now let’s look at the Greek evidence. The apostles and early Christians widely used Greek. In classical and Koine Greek, there is no final vowel “a” in the masculine nominative; the standard ending is “-s,” and in oblique cases, there is “-n” (acc.) or the ending disappears (gen./dat. with contraction). Hence, the name is sometimes written as Iēsous (nom.), Iēsoun (acc.), Iēsou (gen.). Even the translators of the Septuagint, around the 2nd century BC, rendered the name Joshua in this Greek form, without a final “a.” This is very important: if it was believed that the sound should end in “a,” the Greek system could easily have reflected this in the appropriate cases; however, the Greek naming standard led to forms with “-s” in the nominative and no final “a.” This is not a “distortion,” but a regular adaptation to Greek morphology, and at the same time it indicates that an audible “a” resulting from a final ayin was not expected.

The conclusion from comparing Greek, Aramaic, and Jewish traditions is this: the final ayin in the name does not require the vowel “a.” In many contexts, it was weakened or completely inaudible, which is reflected in Greek and Syriac spellings. Of course, in more recent Hebrew traditions, a form with “-a” in writing became widespread, but this does not prove that this was always spoken in all eras and regions.

The claim that the shorter form was pronounced “incorrectly” because “they didn’t know Hebrew” is an oversimplification. Dialectal differences and language contact (Aramaic, Greek) naturally lead to variability. For understanding sources, what matters more is how actual spellings and transliterations function within a given linguistic system. And they show a consistent lack of final “a” in Greek and the presence/disappearance of a pharyngeal closure in Aramaic.

A few words on the contentious issue of „who is right.” Instead of pitting scholars and tradition against each other, it is better to compare the data. The Greek of the New Testament has the forms Iēsous/Iēsou/Iēsoun. The Septuagint does the same with the name of Joshua long before the Christian era. Aramaic traditions retain the ayin in writing, but its realization at the end is often weak or nonexistent. This is the common denominator: the absence of a final, full „a” resulting from the ayin. Therefore, the often-repeated argument that „everyone said Yeshua, but just wrote it down wrong” doesn’t have a strong basis when you look across the linguistic spectrum.

On the other hand, it must be honestly added that names have variants. In the Hebrew books, a longer variant with theophoric elements can be found, as well as a shorter variant, which more often corresponds to the form encountered in later periods or in other regions. The very fact of the coexistence of variants is nothing unusual; in many languages, names exist in both full and shortened versions, and the writing system supports them in different ways.

Finally, I will address the „colorful graphic” and the arrangement of letters. We read from right to left. For clarity, one can distinguish between letters that carry consonants and those that serve as mater lectionis (vowel carriers). In the longest version of the name, used in the Old Testament for Joshua, we have a sequence of letters corresponding roughly to: yod – he – waw – shin – ayin. If we mark them with colors for easier tracking (e.g., black – red – green – blue – brown), we can see that in the shorter variants the layout is shortened and some elements „shift” functionally: shin may change its position in the sequence, and the final ayin remains a guttural consonant, often inaudible at the end. Hence the differences between the longer and shorter spellings and between what the spelling suggests and what is actually heard in different traditions.

In summary:

Ayin is a guttural consonant, with no Polish nor English equivalent; its realization is often weak, especially at the end.

The mere presence of ayin does not mean that a final „a” should be added.

Pronunciation traditions differed (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Aramaic), and for a long time Hebrew functioned mainly in the liturgical and scholarly sphere, which contributed to the instability of its realization.

Greek forms (in both the Septuagint and the New Testament) do not have a final „a” and conform to Greek morphology.

Aramaic/Syriac scripts retain the ayin, but its phonetic trace at the end is minimal or nonexistent.

Variants of the name coexisted; there is no basis for considering one to be „real” and others „corrupted” solely based on later pronunciation habits.

Therefore, reasonable, source-based research practice consists of:

confronting writings in different languages and eras,

knowing the morphological rules of the target language (e.g., Greek),

understanding the role of „weak consonants” and mater lectionis,

accepting that, without recordings, a margin of uncertainty will always remain.

In a moment, I will present a graphic showing the arrangement of letters with their consonant and vowel assignments. At the top right, in the large Hebrew script (read from right to left), I introduce labels: above the letter – its consonant function, below the letter – its vowel function (where it serves as mater lectionis). „Y” remains „Y” – the question is what comes after it in a given variant. The longest version (for Joshua) contains a sequence of five letters: black, red, green, blue, and brown, corresponding to yod, he, waw, shin, ayin. Shorter variants remove one letter or change the function of the vowel carriers – and it is for this reason that one gets the impression that „shin shifts,” though what is actually changing is the role and phonetic context of individual signs. As a result, regardless of the variant, the final ayin does not become „a,” but – according to numerous attestations – is often inaudible, especially at the end of the word. This explains why in Greek we find forms without a final „a,” and in Aramaic the script maintains the ayin without necessarily enforcing a distinct vowel at the end. Such a data arrangement allows us to speak of a coherent picture: the writing and pronunciation are consistent with the rules of each language, and discrepancies result from systemic differences and historical phonetic changes, not from simple mistakes or negligence. Thanks to this, we know how to interpret these inscriptions without unnecessary speculation.

Look: the whole time we are talking about the inscription at the top, on the right side. First Y, then the red H, then the green W—these are three out of four letters of the Divine Name: Y, H, W. Only the last H is missing. That is why it is quite possible that the name of Joshua at the beginning had a slightly different form than the later name of Christ, because it probably indicated „YHW saves” or „Savior”, that is—as some say today—”Yahweh saves”. But then a change occurs. It appears after the return from Babylonian captivity, and not so much among the prophets, but for example in Ezra—the chronicler and scholar of the Scriptures. He transcribes (among other things) the Old Testament: from ancient Hebrew writing into the alphabet used in Babylon, and records the shorter version—the middle one: Y, SH, W and the silent AJIN. He removes HE. Why? Because it is „silent”. What does that mean? That it does not have a permanently assigned sound.

„Silent” letters served auxiliary functions. For example, such an ajin at the end (the brown one) could indicate that a word had ended. Previously, texts were written in a string, without spaces, so in order to signal the end of a word, one could insert an ajin. One could also insert another „silent” letter—what mattered was a graphic signal. Such a silent consonant, which does not have a permanently assigned sound, could also suggest that in a given place a certain vowel should be inserted, because the Hebrews did not write vowels. And so, for example, H (the red one at the top) suggests that you need to insert A or E. I even wrote below: A or E. Depending on the context, everyone understood: since there is HE, you need to insert A or E, so the meaning of the sentence would be clear.

Then we have WAW—that is our W. Surprisingly, although it is also a consonant, it is sometimes read as A, O, or U. This does indeed make it harder—the alphabet was quite complicated. Next comes SH (shin). This is simply SH. Sometimes someone who could not pronounce it properly would say „s”, but SH is a separate letter in the Hebrew alphabet. At the end, there is this „silent” letter. And now look: the HE, which is a silent auxiliary letter, is removed in the later writing. Some say that the second form is a shortened version of the same name. I believe otherwise: it is not a shortened form of the name, but a shortened writing of the same name. Of course, there is also a switching of two letters.

Why is it an abbreviation of the writing, and not just an abbreviation of the name itself? Because the HE was not needed as a reading aid. Later on, around 1200 years after Christ, the Masoretes added their own marks to the Hebrew texts—dots and dashes under and over the letters—which indicated how the text should be read. It was a kind of additional „alphabet”, making reading easier. Before that, these did not exist, and the function of hints was fulfilled precisely by the silent letters: they suggested where and which vowel should be inserted. If someone was skilled, they didn’t need such a support. Inscriptions without „silent” letters were read normally—just as „at the top” as „in the middle”. It’s a bit like learning to ride a bike: at first, there are training wheels or a stick to hold on to, but once you gain experience, they’re no longer needed.

So, if the „silent” HE was removed in the middle version, a proficient reader could still easily read it. What’s intriguing is the switching of places between W and SH. At the top, it would come out something like Yewshu or Yawshu—perhaps Yawshu („YHW saves”). In the lower version, the switch occurs: first SH, then W, and additionally W is read as U. We get Yeshu—it’s as if the „w” disappears in pronunciation. How do we know it’s Yeshu? From Greek, where names are transliterated: the equivalent is IESU (Yesu). This confirms the direction of reading.

It’s also quite understandable that the third version (at the very bottom) appears in the Gospel of Matthew. There is traditional information (I don’t remember if it’s from the 3rd or the 4th century) that Matthew wrote the Gospel first in Hebrew and then in Greek. In the medieval copies we have, at the end there is no longer the ajin. Some therefore draw the conclusion that it was pronounced „Yeshu”, and not „Yeshua”. However, let me remind you: ajin (the brown one) was a silent letter in practice—it wasn’t pronounced. So it’s natural that just as earlier the Judeans removed the unnecessary HE, later others began to remove the ajin as well, since it didn’t produce any sound anyway. Especially as people began to put spaces between words. So we see the historical evolution of the writing of the name. The first two forms (at the top) can be seen in the Old Testament. At the end of the 5th century BC, the shorter version appears. In the Gospel of Matthew, already after Christ, the shortest form appears, about which there is no doubt that it was read as „Yeshu”.

Now, very important: when should you actually read „a” at the end, that is, „Yeshu-a”? Only when there is a red H at the end again—that silent letter. In the white box you have a word that is read „Yeshu-a” (we read from right to left). Yeshua—because at the end stands HE. And HE, as you have seen above, can mean A or E. Which one—it depends on the context. In the past, people were very skilled with these rules and had no trouble with them. The spelling Yeshua is therefore formed as the ajin penultimate and HE at the end. If there is no HE, we do not pronounce „a”. That is why I believe that just „Yeshu” (without HE) is the masculine form, and „Yeshua” is a different form, associated with the meaning „salvation”, with a feminine nuance. This is not a popular theory among theologians, but that’s how we understand it.

What is the ultimate proof? The fact that the Hebrew „Yeshu” was transliterated by the apostles as „Yesu”, without adding „a” at the end—if they had wanted to add it, they had the correct letter (alpha) and it would have become „Yesua”. Since they did not do this—regardless of their education level, and the writers had to be skilled—for me this is convincing. I think for you as well, because it’s logical and stems from the facts, you just need to have an open mind and want to delve into it.

Conclusions from the investigation. The form „Jesus” is the Latinized version of the Greek form „Jesus”—”-s” is only a grammatical ending. The theory of „renaming” the name is a myth based on a mistaken interpretation of historical data and phonetics. The form „Yeshua” is a modern innovation resulting from an incorrect reading of the silent Hebrew letter ajin; the correct, historical, and biblical form of the Savior’s name is simply „Yeshu”. In the Bible we read: „You did not deny my name”—in the Book of Revelation. I will quote here from my blog: I uploaded an article from 2012 (probably from May 15) to an artificial intelligence and asked it to prepare slides – that’s how these slides I am sharing with you came to be.

The author of the blog (that is, me) suggests that the departure from the original name is not a coincidence. I believe that spiritual forces are actively working to make the true name fall into oblivion, weakening its power. Don’t you see some sense in this? Since Christ said – and the apostles recorded – that „whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved”, shouldn’t Satan do everything possible to distort and hide that name? Let the Gospel spread – as long as people don’t call upon the Name through which salvation comes. That’s why it’s so important for us to talk about it today. In this way, we actively oppose the actions of evil. For centuries, this Name was forgotten; today we are uncovering it again. This needs to be taken to the whole world, in different languages. This is not just a historical curiosity – it’s a fundamental issue for our salvation.

However, I would like to refer to another Bible verse: 1 Cor 12:3. „Therefore I declare to you that no one, being under the influence of the Spirit of God, says: 'a curse on Yeshu’; and no one can say: ’Yeshu is Lord’, except in the Holy Spirit.” We can consider this in two ways: either that the person of Christ is a curse, or that His name is sometimes treated like a curse – that’s how some interpret it, and some even translate it that way. However, we can take these words very literally: that the name of our Lord, Yeshu, someone will want to consider accursed. And here I see the extraordinary insight of the Holy Spirit: almost two thousand years ago we were forewarned that some would appear who claim that Yeshu is a curse. Please know that those who say so do not act in the power of the Holy Spirit, do not rely on His knowledge, and have nothing to do with Christ. We further read that „no one can say: Yeshu is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit”. So if you believe that Yeshu is Lord – meaning that the Lord’s name is Yeshu – the natural consequence is to call upon that name and pray using that very name. You will be surprised at the relief you feel when you do this for the first time: the awareness that you have been heard as never before can be life-changing. Try it and see for yourself. So think it over and make a decision – if you have not done so already – to apply for immersion in the name of our Lord Yeshu. In this way, you will show Him respect and embark on the path of service, proclaiming His name to your loved ones and others: relatives, acquaintances, everyone you can. It is in this very way, by proclaiming His name, that we serve Him and bear fruit; we become a tree that bears a crop. This fruit is both our mouths – confessing and speaking about Christ – and the people we bring to Him, because we are like seeds sown in the soil. If the soil is good, the crop will come a hundredfold, sixtyfold, or thirtyfold – but it will be there. It would be bad if there were no crop at all. That is why I encourage you, make the decision to serve Christ. Immerse yourself if you haven’t done so yet. On April 2 we are planning an immersion (2–3 hours), right before the Memorial of the Death of Christ. We will immerse in Kalisz – think it over, plan it, and if you want, contact me. I will help you organize accommodation and everything you need.

Thanks for listening until the end. I would be extremely grateful for likes, shares and comments, because it helps grow the channel, which gives a chance to reach even more people.

I encourage you to explore the other materials on our website yeshu.blog . You will find many interesting topics there that are sure to capture your interest. they

If you receive the gift of faith in the name of our Lord Yeshu, take the next step and contact me to be immersed in the name of Yeshu. You can find contact details on our website or simply write on Messenger.

Glory to Yeshu!!!