I do not have the inclination nor time to watch a nearly two hour video on the topic. Can you briefly summarize what you mean by claiming that "it is erroneous"? By "it", do you mean the presence of the 'ayn (phonetically, a voiced pharyngeal fricative) in the various Semitic languages' name for Christ? Because the name that you can clearly see circled at 7 seconds into the video you've linked ends in an 'ayn (in Hebrew, the letter representing this sound looks like this: ע). In Classical Syriac, Jesus' name is spelled ܝܫܽܘܥ, with the sound represented by ܥ (as I wrote previously); in Arabic, it is يسوع, with that same sound represented by ع (which is why you often see it represented in transliterated Arabic used by lazy people like me by the number 3). The only Semitic languages that I know of that do not conform to this pattern are those that have taken it from other sources and don't have that sound segment anyway, like Maltese (Ġesù - obviously a Latinate borrowing, cf. Italian Gesù) or Amharic (ኢየሱስ - Iyesus, from the Greek).
See I knew I would get the "I don't want to watch the video" remark. The man clearly lays out the name, explains it in depth. There is no summary I can give you, as you aren't interested in really learning about it. You are interested in arguing about it.
The man lays it out in Hebrew and Aramaic very clearly. It would answer your question.
No, I'm not actually interested in arguing about it. I'm interested in getting an answer to my question: What do you mean when you say "it is erroneous"? Is "it" the presence of the voiced pharyngeal fricative in the Semitic equivalents of 'Jesus Christ'?
If you can't summarize the basis for your objection, chances are you don't know what you're talking about. Throwing a bunch of silly pseudo-science babbling at us via silly youtube videos doesn't exactly help dispel that impression.
I'm watching it now, by the way. "Many people are saying things and they don't even understand what's coming out of their mouths." No kidding.
He clearly lays it out. Each letter, one at a time. What was it that he said that turned to babble to you?
I'm sorry folks, Jesus was not the name he was called here on Earth. You just are going to plainly have to accept it. You can cry, attack me, stop your feet, or whatever. He was not called Jesus. I think Jesus is a very weak transliteration of his name, and I don't entirely buy into th conspiratorial arguments here.
I've even presented the codex sinaiticus, which does not contain Ἰησοῦς (iesus).
His name was a derivative of Yeshua, Yehushua, or Yehowshua, - but most linguistic scholars say "Yeshua". This is not uncommon and I did not make this up. There are MANY web sites written by laymen, religious buffs, pastors, professors, doctors, and historians that call him Yeshua.
It's non arguable unless you want to claim his mother called him "Jesus". <- That would not speak much for credibility.
As I've said, before all this got re-erupted, I believe that saying "Jesus" is a very weak transliteration, and that "Yeshua" is a more perfect transliteration and extremely close if not exact to his name.
To answer a question above, yes I would say the Lord's prayer as transliterated. The words in context would equate. But rather than avoiding his name by saying "In the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit" - I would pray in HIS name, as Yeshua OUR GOD commanded us to do. In my home we say some form of "In Yeshua's name we pray, amen".