First of all, Uri, I wasn't getting into the Yod Shin Waw Ayin debate. I was just pointing out that whatever Iesous is taken from, it isn't Iesous, and I even misspelled it Iesus in my haste since it wasn't what I was talking about. I did read through your article. I suggest you strive for more conciseness, if you want to be more effective. You have a very revealing statement at the end: "Although there are occasions on which some Jewish Sages referred to Jesus as Yod Shin Waw Ayin ..." In other words, after all of that study, you admit that it is possible that his name really was Yeshua, the same as what the KJV spells as Joshua in the Old Testament. I can summarize your whole argument in a single statement: Iesous is used in the LXX to transliterate other Hebrew names besides Yeshua, so it isn't conclusively proven that Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshua, but it could have been.

Netanel, Uri confirmed that sabachthani is not NECESSARILY ridiculous nonsense, regardless of the fact that he cast doubt on exactly what it might mean. I admit that a transliteration is not a "real word", but that does not make it a nonsense word.

"Sh'vaqtani does not appear in Ezra. Sh'vuqu, which comes from the same root, appears once in Ezra 6:7."

This kind of argument makes for a lot of frustration and wasted verbage. Of course, I was referring to appearance of the same root, not the same grammatical form. If I said that the verb "to go" was used in a sentence, "He went to town," would you come back at me to say that it is not, the word there is "went"? Stick with the substance.

I admit that I am getting out of my league in this discussion. I am relying on you for a lot of information about Aramaic and Hebrew. You were the one who told me that the Aramaic could be l'ma instead of M'TUL MAH. If you hadn't told me that I would have been at a loss to explain lambda alpha mu alpha. If you want to win this debate with me just refrain from giving me any help and I'll be reduced to gibberish. However, a good Jew like you wouldn't do something that nasty, would you? However, this illustrates why one shouldn't just accept a conclusion because one can't answer all of the challenges. There might be even a piece of information that even a learned man like Uri doesn't know.

Having said that, "lama" in Greek would not tell whether the word originally spoken was "l'ma" or "lama", the Greek vowels not being that precise. I fail to see why you are even calling attention to that.

The puzzle is why it is sabachthani and not sabaktani. I suggested that it could be that Jesus spoke a dialectical variation of Aramaic that changed the sounds in that manner. Uri put the suggestion that they had lost their Kappa and so used a Chi. I don't know for sure what the answer is. The fact that I don't know for sure does not mean that there is no answer. Even if no one in the world knows what the answer is, that does mean there is no answer, either.

If you want to suggest "z'vachtani" there remains the question of why the Greek letter Theta is used instead of Tau. Sh'vaqtani has the correct meaning in Aramaic, and the small difficulty of a variant pronunciation "sh'vachthani" is a preferred solution to me. In any case, this is not a "massive error".

This brings us to the theological arguments which I will touch on briefly. You make a lot of hay over the "God-man" idea, but you are ignoring that trinitarian doctrine specifically says that Jesus was fully human in all aspects except sinfulness. I don't necessarily accept any trinitarian doctrinal statement if it is not directly stated in the NT, but you are attacking a straw man here that is only meaningful to an ignorant person, the very thing you denounce Messianics for doing. The Father and the Son are two different persons, so stop the talk about Jesus abandoning himself. The NT teaches that Jesus became sin for us (II Corinthians 5:21) and this is why God abandoned Jesus the man at this time, who actually was reduced to the state of a worm. God did not die on the cross. If you would stick with the real thing instead of caricatures, you wouldn't have to defile yourself in that way.