Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
To Whom it may concern….
This deep dive states a precise, testable thesis with no padding and no apology: calling on Jesus does not equate to salvation; salvation is bound by covenant to the sounded Name Yehoshua; and when the Gentile Greek communities began sounding Iesous in place of Yehoshua, the covenant invocation ceased in those communities and in all who inherited their substitution. The backbone is straightforward: in Scripture, salvation attaches to calling and confessing with the mouth, not to writing or to later ecclesial conventions; names in covenant are sound first, identity-bearing utterances, not elastic labels; “Jesus” is neither a translation of Yehoshua, nor a transliteration of Yehoshua, nor a synonym for Yehoshua; English has always had the phonetic capacity to carry Yehoshua exactly, eliminating any pretense of necessity; and there is no biblical provision that excuses replacing the covenant Name with an invented sound once the truth has been revealed.
The covenant mechanism is oral and sounded, not merely textual. Joel 2:32 declares, everyone who calls on the Name of Yahweh will be saved; Acts 2:21 repeats the same promise at the launch of the New Covenant proclamation; Romans 10:9–10 binds salvation to confession with the mouth coupled with belief in the heart. In all three, the decisive act is vocalized calling and confessing. Names in Scripture are never arbitrary tags; they are covenant carriers of identity and function. Yehoshua is Yahweh’s own Name embedded in saving action: Yah + yasha, Yahweh saves. That embedded meaning exists as a sounded identity, not as mute letters on a page. A person does not call a name by writing it; a person calls a name by saying it. Therefore the question is not what can be printed without diacritics or how later institutions chose to spell, but what sound Yahweh gave and what sound leaves the lips when people call.
The definitions that govern this analysis are elementary and decisive. Translation is the transfer of meaning from one language to another. Yehoshua means Yahweh saves; the modern English form Jesus does not carry Yah, does not encode Yahweh, and does not communicate that embedded covenant proposition in its form. It is therefore not a translation. Transliteration is the transfer of sound from one script to another so that the original pronunciation is preserved as closely as possible. Yehoshua is pronounced ye-ho-shua; the Greek Iesous is pronounced approximately ee-AY-soos and the English Jesus is pronounced JEE-zus; these are materially different sounds at the level of every syllable. They are therefore not transliterations. Synonymy is a relation in which two distinct words share meaning or reference such that they are interchangeable without loss of identity. The covenant Name Yehoshua is a specific sounded identity given by Yahweh; Jesus is a later Gentile ecclesial form with a different sound, a different syllabic structure, and no embedded Yah-name; the two are not interchangeable without loss of the covenant identity. They are therefore not synonyms. These three simple definitions, applied rigorously, close the door: Jesus is not a translation, not a transliteration, and not a synonym of Yehoshua. It is a substitution.
The apostolic and messianic realities underline this without sentiment. The Messiah was a Hebrew from a Hebrew family; His disciples were Hebrews; the Name announced from heaven was a covenant Name to be spoken, not a negotiable label to be adapted to foreign phonology. Matthew 1:21 links the given Name to the saving function; that linkage lives in the uttered Name, not in a later empire’s spelling. Greek manuscripts write Iesous because Greek orthography and phonotactics lacked the sh sound and imposed case endings; but manuscript convention is not covenant sound, ink is not invocation, and the scribal accommodation of a text for Greek readers does not authorize a permanent exchange of the spoken Name. The lived, sounded usage among the Hebrew apostles was Yehoshua. The fracture occurred when Gentile Greek communities moved the manuscript convention into the mouth, made Iesous their spoken norm, and then passed that spoken substitution along to Latin Iesus and, later, English Jesus. From that moment, the social habit of calling upon a foreign sound replaced the covenant act of calling upon the Name Yahweh gave.
The “English necessity” defense fails on contact with phonetics. English has all the sounds required to carry Yehoshua exactly: initial Y, the open E, audible HO, the SH affricate, and the final -UA sequence. Syllabically, English speakers can and do say ye-ho-shua without distortion. This means there was never a phonetic barrier in English that forced a change; the moment English existed as a living tongue, the Name could have been preserved intact as Yehoshua in both print and speech. The same way translators today can translate the Hebrew Scriptures directly into English without routing through intermediate languages, the Name could be rendered directly, sounded directly, and taught directly. Persisting with Jesus in English is therefore not necessity but maintenance of an earlier Gentile substitution. By the user’s own correct framing: Yehoshua in Hebrew is Yehoshua in English; no gap, no excuse.
The scriptural fence that limits any appeal to “God understands what I meant” is clear and tight. Acts 17:30 does not grant a license to rename the Son; it only states that God formerly overlooked times of ignorance and now commands all people everywhere to repent in light of the risen Messiah. It addresses ignorance of His existence, not permission to substitute His covenant Name. There is no verse that canonizes misnaming as acceptable once truth is made known. The only umbrella term that delays judgment is the grace of God, and grace is never a ratification of error; it is a suspension of due penalty to create room for repentance. Therefore, once the covenant Name Yehoshua is clearly restored to hearing, there remains no biblical ground for continuing to call a different sound and claiming covenant promise.
The covenant consequence follows from these premises with the force of a proof. If salvation, according to Scripture’s own language, is bound to calling and confessing with the mouth, and if the Name to be called is the sounded covenant Name Yehoshua, and if Jesus is neither a translation, nor a transliteration, nor a synonym of that Name, then the act of calling Jesus is not the act of calling Yehoshua. If, further, the Gentile Greek communities normalized Iesous as their spoken form and passed that forward through Latin to English, then the point at which Iesous displaced Yehoshua in speech is the point at which those communities stopped performing the covenant act that Scripture ties to salvation. Since then, only those who have actually called upon the Name Yehoshua have fulfilled the covenant condition. Let me say this in a clearer way. Anyone who has called upon any other name besides Yehoshua, since that name was given, in present day or in history, has NOT received salvation. Which unfortunately is a massive number. This is not a statement about sincerity or sentiment; it is a statement about covenant mechanics as articulated in Scripture and anchored in the sound of the Name. It is also not a dismissal of God’s patience; it is a refusal to pretend that patience validates a counterfeit.
It must be stated without dilution: if anyone has called upon any other name than Yehoshua, from the time the covenant Name was given until now, whether in past generations or in the present, they have not received salvation, and the fault is not with the Father. Yahweh does not fail to uphold His covenant. He gave the Name, He tied salvation to that Name, and He preserved it. The failure lies in the human side — in the unwillingness to seek, to listen, to press into the intimacy of true relationship.
Names in covenant are not casual handles; they are points of relational proximity. To know the Name of your God is to know Him in truth. To refuse to learn or to prefer convenience is a relational betrayal. Who does not know the name of their own father? Who among us would dare to marry a spouse yet refuse to learn their name, insisting instead on using whatever substitute seems easy? No one who truly loves, truly seeks, and truly commits would tolerate such distance.
This is why the covenant Name is not an academic curiosity but the litmus test of intimacy. A true seeker of Yahweh would long to know His Son’s Name. They would ask, they would wrestle, they would pursue. And Yahweh, being faithful, would reveal it — just as He has revealed it to those He has awakened in this generation. The claim that billions of people had no way to know is undercut by the very promise of Scripture: “You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13). To search with all the heart is to be led into truth, and truth includes the covenant Name.
The analogy can be drawn to a child crying out for his father. If he cries a stranger’s name, the father does not answer because the sound does not belong to him. It is not cruelty; it is covenantal order. The father’s ears are tuned to his Name. If the child truly desires his father and seeks him, he will learn to form the sound correctly and the father will answer at once. If he refuses and insists on another sound, it reveals not ignorance alone but a lack of intimacy, a lack of desire to be truly known and to truly know.
This means that the generations who have relied on the substitute were not victims of divine unfairness. They were people who chose cultural inheritance over relational pursuit, who settled for what they were handed rather than seeking the living God with the depth that would have led them to His Name. A counterfeit can only satisfy those who are content with distance. The covenant Name Yehoshua is for those who hunger for nearness.
Therefore, the loss is not charged to Yahweh. It is charged to the failure of those who refused to press through the counterfeit into the intimacy of covenant. Salvation was never withheld by Him; it was missed by those who did not call the Name He gave. This is the razor edge of responsibility: no one who truly seeks the Father will remain in ignorance of His Son’s covenant Name.
The conclusion must be stated as plainly as the thesis and with the same refusal to indulge evasions. Calling on Jesus does not mean salvation. The Gentile Greek substitution of Iesous for Yehoshua in spoken usage marked the watershed at which the covenant invocation ceased among those who adopted the substitute. Since that takeover, no one has been saved by calling a counterfeit sound; only those who have called upon Yehoshua have called upon the covenant Name that Scripture binds to salvation. There is no excuse, because names in covenant are sound first and English has long had the phonetics to speak Yehoshua without loss. Translation does not apply, transliteration does not apply, synonymy does not apply; what remains is substitution, and substitution is precisely what covenant forbids. Wake up to this and act accordingly, because this is one of those rare cases where being right is not about winning an argument, but about eternal life. Get the Name right, say the Name right, and call upon Yehoshua.
