The Central Claim Being Examined

Claim:
“The English name ‘Jesus’ is a faithful preservation of the Savior’s true name and acceptable for worship.”

This claim rests on several common arguments. Each will be addressed directly.

Argument 1: “Jesus is a valid transliteration; meaning is preserved even if sounds change”

The Issue

It is claimed that:

• “Jesus” comes from Greek Iēsous

• which comes from Yehuyeshah (Joshua)

• therefore identity and meaning are preserved

The Internal Contradiction

If transliteration alone preserves identity, then consistency would require:

• “Joshua” to be treated with the same reverence as “Jesus”

• since both are claimed to derive from the same original source

Yet:

• Joshua is treated as an ordinary name

• Jesus is treated as uniquely sacred and non-negotiable

This reveals the real issue is not transliteration, but Greek mediation.

If meaning were truly preserved, the True Name embedded in the original form would remain visible. It does not.

This is not preservation.
It is extraction.

Argument 2: “Yehuwah looks at the heart; pronunciation doesn’t matter”

Why This Argument Fails Scripturally

Scripture never says:

“Names don’t matter if your heart is sincere.”

Scripture repeatedly says the opposite.

Explicit Scriptural Evidence

Speech matters

“Make no mention of the name of other mighty ones, nor let it be heard from your mouth.”
— The Exit (Exodus) 23:13

This is not belief-only. It is mouth and speech instruction.

Salvation is tied to calling on a Name

“Whoever calls on the name of Yehuwah shall be saved.”
— Yehuale (Joel) 2:32

This is not vague intent. It is specific invocation.

Restoration involves removing false names from mouths

“I will take from her mouth the names of the Ba‘als…”
— Hoyeshah (Hosea) 2:17

This establishes a clear pattern:

• wrong names on lips = covenant corruption

• restoration = removal and return

Therefore, the claim “Yehuwah doesn’t care what name you use” directly contradicts prophetic instruction.

Argument 3: “Scripture has been faithfully preserved; corruption is a conspiracy claim”

Scripture’s Own Testimony

Scripture does not claim flawless scribal transmission.

It explicitly warns of corruption.

“The false pen of the scribes certainly works falsehood.”
— Yermeyehu (Jeremiah) 8:8

This verse alone authorizes scrutiny.

Even more direct:

“They try to make My people forget My Name… as their fathers forgot My Name for Ba‘al.”
— Yermeyehu (Jeremiah) 23:27

This is not accidental loss. This is replacement, tied to foreign worship structures.

Therefore, dismissing the possibility of name corruption is not Scriptural—it is anti-Scriptural.

The Greek Language Test: Where the Argument Breaks Completely

The Savior’s name is explicitly defined in Scripture:

“You shall call His name ___, for He will save His people from their sins.”
— Matathyehu (Matthew) 1:21

This binds the name to the meaning of salvation.

The Greek Problem

In Greek Scripture, salvation language consistently uses:

• sōzō (to save)

• sōtēria (salvation)

• sōtēr (savior)

Critical observation:
The Greek name Iēsous does not contain these salvation roots.

This creates an unavoidable problem:

If Greek is claimed to be authoritative, then the Greek name fails to preserve the salvation meaning in-form.

Instead, the meaning must be supplied externally by explanation:

“for He will save…”

That is not preservation. That is semantic dependency.

Falsification Test

If Greek transmission truly preserved the name’s meaning:

• the Greek name-form itself would visibly encode salvation

• or Scripture would say, “this name means salvation in our tongue”

Neither occurs.

“But Many Have Called on Jesus Sincerely”…

This argument appeals to outcomes, not instruction.

Scripture already accounts for this tension:

• mercy does not erase command

• grace does not negate correction

• ignorance does not sanctify error

The existence of mercy does not justify perpetuating inherited corruption once it is exposed.

Restoration in Scripture always follows this pattern:

1. exposure

2. repentance

3. return

Why This Is Not an Attack on Individuals

This examination does not accuse:

• believers

• past generations

• those who acted in ignorance

It challenges:

• systems

• language inheritance

• theological shortcuts

• the assumption that tradition is immune from correction

Scripture repeatedly calls people out of inherited error after revealing it.

Scripture teaches:

• Names matter

• Speech matters

• Calling on the Name is covenantal

• False names on lips corrupt worship

• Scribes altered the true text

• The Name was forgotten and replaced

• Restoration involves returning to the True Name

Additionally:

• The Greek salvation words are not present in the name “Jesus”

• The salvation meaning is therefore not preserved in the Greek form

• The defense of “Jesus” relies on tradition, not Scriptural.

Final Conclusion

The question is not:

“Is Yehuwah merciful?”

The question is:

“Did He warn us about this exact situation?”

Scripture answers YES.

Therefore, the argument that “Jesus” is a faithful preservation of the Savior’s true name and acceptable for worship cannot be sustained on Scriptural, linguistic, or logical grounds.

This is not about condemnation.
It is about truth, repentance, and restoration.

“Those who know Your Name will trust in You.”
— Songs (Psalm) 9:10

Ask of Yehuwah, and He will give. Seek Him, and you will find. Knock, and He will open the way.”