Yes I know that there are differences but I was simply trying to understand why in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, the same name is used for Joshua and Jesus, Iesous (EE - sEUs) while in Arabic you somehow have two names for Jesus and a different name for Joshua (Isa, Yasu and Yusha)? It just didn't make sense to me that the Arab Christians call Jesus Yasu while the Muslims call Him Isa and the why they would call him Yasu when the New Testament, originally in Koine, calls our Lord Iesous which does not sound like Yasu?
I just read something that gives a good explanation.
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.
Yeshua was used as the name for Jesus in late additions to the Yosippon; however, its usage here is a translation back into the Hebrew Yeshua from the Greek. The Toledot Yeshu narratives combine the person or persons designated Yeshu in the Talmud with Jesus, but relate that his original name was Yehoshua. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)
But still I think it is important to remember that both St.Clement of Alexandria and St.Cyril of Jerusalem considered Iesous to be the original name and not Yeshua.
There seems to be some discrepancy about the correct pronunciation about the Name of Our Lord as it was originally written in the Gospels. The Greek people I've read state that it is pronounced ee-sEUs; only two syllables. When I've been to Latin Masses, long ago Iesus is pronounced ee-AY-SEUS; now three syllables. But we should remember the Latins are pronouncing a Greek word as it would sound using Latin Pronunciation.
As far as the Old Believers go I would have written the same thing several years ago but now after researching what happened I have a very different view. When the name of the Lord was changed with the addition of one letter it seemed to be from Latin influence. It is difficult for us to understand but think of it this way. You are Russian Orthodox and all the other Orthodox peoples have fallen to Muslim Turks and before that were actively involved in trying to re-unite with the Latins and in fact did at times. Now the Patriarch is working with hierarchs from the various other Orthodox peoples who are trying to alter and change many important aspects of your faith. In fact they considered the changes so important that they persecuted and killed those who clung to the Old Rite. Patriarch Nikon was willing to allow those who wished to continue using the Old Rite but then he was deposed. The foreign bishops continued to work with the government of Tsar Alexei and the other Russian Bishops to force the New Rite on everyone and anathematized the Old Rite. I can understand why so many thought that the changes were of the Antichrist. Later they were vindicated by research as it was shown that in fact the Russians prior to the Nikonian changes had scrupulously preserved and maintained what they received without changing it at all. The differences were based on a different recession which had different practices. In fact the other Churches had developed and changed their rites more.
I think in all fairness we should remember that the way the Nikonian changes were implemented and the offensive conduct of the foreign bishops and certain Russian bishops in anathematizing the legitimate Russian Old-Rite and brutally persecuting those who did not want to follow the changes played a strong if not the greatest role in creating the Schism (Raskol).
But that is another discussion.