here's my notes, can't guaranty their accuracy. (If anyone notices any errors on my part, please say so)

Grammar and tense dictates what vowels are used!
Yeh = present tense third person for He
hoAY’= to be/ is (the long O and long AYsound is due to the grammar) . i left out the w because the w is supposed to be short, so if the o is pronounced long, a short w sound will naturally be produced, wheras if the w is seen by the reader, the error could be to pronounce it too long which could completely change the meaning.
haWAH’ = was
haWAY = will be
YEhoAY= He who is.-- all encompassing pronunciation of all three tenses. This is the correct one to use
HUwah = archaic (pu-al) form of has become
YeHUwah = He who has become
Yah = future tense of he
YahUwah= he will be the one who has become.
Yahweh/Yahway = Samaratain pronunciation, apparently OK
don’t do this: yehawWAH = he who is evil-- haw-WAH= evil
YehoAY=(using a long O sound) He who is-- Name of the Father.
yeshuah= salvation, feminine
Yeshua = Salvation, He Salvation, the heh was dropped to make His name masculine.
Yehoshua = (using long O sound) long form of He who is salvation-- has two of the three syllables of His Father’s Name.
shua= archaic for “cries for help”
Yahushua= He will be the one who cries for help
Yahshua = he will cry for help.

I noticed in another article by Yoseph Viel, he concluded from history, that Powers would be a more accurate translation of Elohim. So when evangelizing, would a more accurate approach be to use the term Powers?
Areas that I didn’t quite catch:
With the AY sound, does an heh follow it as in AYh?
If Yeshua has become our salvation, then would YeHUshua be an OK pronunciation or not?

So what exactly are you concluding?

Far as i can tell, the underlined sections are the right pronunciations. (*sigh*, i have a lot of editing to do now.) Interesting that YehoWAY reminds me the most of how the Cherokee pronounce the Name.

Oh boy. It's beginning to look to me as though we need a REVELATION on this. We can't go around with dozens of different pronunciations or we'll be forced to return to "haShem" or "Adonai" again, which really isn't adequate, is it? Nor can we possibly accept that salvation only works through a proper pronunciation.

I am sticking with Yahweh/Yahuweh until I know better.

Yaacov said:

Far as i can tell, the underlined sections are the right pronunciations. (*sigh*, i have a lot of editing to do now.) Interesting that YehoWAY reminds me the most of how the Cherokee pronounce the Name.

What do you think of Jane's research of Anceint Hebrew on Yehspace?

Difficult one. But the fact that she should conclude that Yah'shua is not divine and numerous other errors of theology makes me treat her cautiously (she's also advising all her followers to emmigrate to Petra in Jordan as soon as possible - it was that lunacy, in part, which was the spur to a recent sermon about gathering to Israel). A lot of linguistics is guesswork (she is constantly modifying her conclusions) and it all depends which assumptions you ride with. With so many teachers around all apparently with impeccable credentials, all appealing to logic, I am reminded of the situation I found myself in in 1977 when my head was so jam crammed with contradictory theology that I was forced onto my knees to ask Yahweh to resolve the mess. It was then that I was born again (no question of that - it was my defining moment akin to Ian McCormack's) and every time I have stuck with that anointing (by not wandering off) I have always known which path to go down. He has not revealed everything to me directly but many things He has left me to struggle with intellectually so that I could understand the paths people take and the mistakes people make, but other things I have had to go to Him for direct revelation where the data was insufficient. Sometimes I have been given the intellectual and theological tools later (when the data became available) whilst a revelation was necessary there and then to resolve a potentially divisive issue (tongues and the virgin birth would be good illustrations of that process I experienced).

You like me and many others here have struggled back and forth over various issues - not everything is given to us on a plate because the struggle is expected by Yahweh and is always consecrated to our gain, as well as reminding people that we tend to stick with and appreciate the things we have had to struggle to get but not when it has been handed to us on a plate. (I am coming to the point where I think I am going to need revelation on the calendar lol).

The Deity of Yah'shua the Messiah is fundamental to the Truth of the Gospel/Besorah - without it we are lost. That Jane could miss so fundamental a truth using her intellectual skills sends red flags out to me. And whilst I am not so proud that I won't learn from heretics and even the heathen, wisdom constrains me to walk circumspectly when people claim to be teachers who get such vital truths wrong.

Yah'shua warned us not to make men stumble over words. It seems Jane wants to make the whole messianic movement stumble over a letter.

OK, so hypothetically I might believe that that the V sound being used in either of the Names is a sign of rebelliousness, stubbornness and stiffneckedness on the part of the speaker-- note the clenched teeth posture*.
Now there's 4 possibilities with these two conflicting personal notions, er "modern revelations", if you will.
A. I'm wrong and you Thomas are right.
B. You Thomas are wrong and I'm right.
C. We're both wrong.
D. One of us is technically right, but YHWH shows grace to those who use what they know. So the one who is technically right could potentially go about it in the wrong spirit.

Now i have a question for you. In your profile you say that you accept "modern revelation." Yet in your writings you reject the writings of Shaul/Pallu based upon the Christian caricature and misunderstanding of Shaul/Pallu's writings. So how do you reconcile those different weights and measures? In other words, how can you have a very liberal standard for yourself, but use a totally unfair standard on Shaul/Pallu? [My question cannot be labeled an ad hominem attack because the anti-Paul site was cited in the above post.]

BTW, the V (vav) sound replacing the W or U (waw) is a fairly recent linguistic mutation in the Hebrew language.

Brother, may I assure you that we do not "scheme" here to ban people, and we certainly wish no one to be destroyed, Yah forbid! We say what we mean, hold people to accurate exegesis, and operate within our house rules. FYI Yaacov and I do not agree in every detail, including the Saviour's Name, but that is not an obstacle to our fellowship since we both know who we're talking about. Dismissing an anointed apostle of Yahweh (with signs and miracles attending and who died a martyr to the faith) and a huge chunk of the New Testament is another matter altogether. And though the evolution of the NT canon is an interesting topic, with different collections in different churches, I am personally satisfied that the Protestant Canon represents the lowest common denominator that all believers can be agreed on. I have been through similar searching and every time I have encountered belief systems that omit Paul it has only increased confusion and division. I am satisfied, based on studies of the Old Syriac, that there is no conflict between the apostle and the Tanakh. A small minority disagree and that's fine - they have found their own fellowship, I would imagine, and must give account for their choices as we must.

There are both merits and demerits with a canon and I fully understand the reasoning that led to their formation beginning with the Muratorian Canon and culminating with the Council of Carthage. If you work outside the parameters of a canon there is chaos - then we have people like Monty Judah rejecting Hebrews, the early Lutherans rejecting the 'Straw Gospel' of James, one lot of people rejecting some of the Petrine and Johanning writings, one group which only accepts the Book of Acts, those who reject the Pauline epistles, etc., etc..

Why did the first believers have no need of a canon? Because they had a full Shavu'ot anointing AND THAT SIMPLY IS NOT HERE TODAY, having been eluted out by centuries of apostacy and false teaching. We ourselves have been through the 'canon process' and questioned and it is ultimately fruitless. When you have an open canon people start adding all sorts of things just as Messianics are adding Jasher and the Books of Enoch, the Catholics the Apocrypha, the eastern Churches their own, etc., etc..

I cannot give you a black-and-white answer to this. Al I can say is that after 30 years of agonising over this question I have come to the conclusion that the Protestant Canon is the best MINIMAL collection there is, it has been tested and retested, and I am satisfied it is internally harmonious.

I would like to say that there is a body of believers today walking in the same Ruach as the 1st century one but I would not be truthful. I have never come across one. What I DO have, however, is the endorsement of Paul by the apostle Peter who explains why some people like yourself have problems with Paul:

2 Peter 3:14-17
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked
NKJV

And he continues to be misunderstood to this day.

If Peter endorsed him, that is good enough for me, and ought to be good enough for anyone who endorses Peter. Stop endorsing one and in the end you'll stop endorsing the lot and probably end up being a non-messianic Jew AS MANY HAVE. To reject Paul is, IMHO, to slit your own proverbial throat.

As I said earlier, it is possible that one or more congregations 'excommunicated' Paul - it would not surprise me when they are doing it today too. But then Diotrephes expelled John and the other apostles. In this matter I would be very, very circumspect, because Yah'shua tells us the the original apostles (minus Judas) will judge the 12 Tribes of Israel, which includes you and me. If Peter, as we have confirmed, judged Paul to be kosher, then anyone who declares him to be unkosher runs a terrible risk of coming under Peter's divinely designated judgment. Considering Paul once upbraided Peter, Peter's endorsement carries with it even more weight - the weight of a humble man not unwilling to be corrected by his junior.

Be careful.

As a footnote I would also ask the anti-Pauls to consider this: are they producing the same works as Paul and the first disciples did? Are they doing the same miracles? It was on the basis of the undeniable power of the Ruach haQodesh that the Jerusalem brethren accepted Paul. So I wonder if people are judging on the basis of the same power or just their human wisdom?

That's great, brother, but so are evangelical charismatics and pentecostals, Mormons, new Agers, satanists and a heap of other people. Miracles are happening everywhere but not all are caused by benificent forces. I know of a satanist who had a broken leg healed by demons. I ministered to a satanist who never had a physical illness in her life until she got saved and had her crushed heart repaired by Yah'shua, and then she started getting colds and flu like the rest of us. heretics and pagans heal. I know of pentecostals walk on water in Indonesia to escape Muslims trying to murder them. So what are we left with? There is prophecy - I knew one New Age girl who could tell the future accurately through divination by the power of demons but it destroyed her health. When she got saved through an evangelical), her demonic gift left but Yah'shua healed her destroyed eyesight. And I know Tibetan Buddhists that have raised the dead but they are like zombies in their hearts. I have seen Mormons with their false nephilim priesthood heal a damaged back and Indonesian animists perform operations with their bare hands. I have heard people from satanists to charistamtics speak in tongues - I have heard British new Agers speak in fluent Arabic, two Mormon Americans in fluent Dutch, etc. who did not know these languages.

The thing is, is the Yah'shua being preached the same as the one the apostles knew? Signs and wonders are prophesied in the end times, even to deceive, were it possible, the very elect. Not that I disparage miracles - far from it - I believe in all the gifts but I am wary of those who have experienced miracles but their theology of Elohim is off the page. (I am still waiting for you to answer Yaacov's answers to you on the Godhead).

I too believe in modern revelation. When I was born again Yah'shua transformed my heart and opened my mind. When I took questions that had been raised about Paul such as you and other Ebionites have raised to Him He confirmed to me unmistakably that he was Yahweh's true servant and even now is in glory. I have had testimony after testimony on the truthfulness of Paul's teachings, more so since the excellent work of Aramaic and Hebrew scholars began examining the eastern NT texts.


http://nccg.org/453Art-LifeChrist.html
http://nccg.org/154Art-Law.html

The gentiles kept Torah just as the Counsel of Jerusalem led by James and the other apostles instructed them following Paul's deputation.