And you received your answer. Moving on . . . No I received no answer. Respect for the name doesn't cut it. You're trying to communicate to people who know the Messiah as Jesus. Why not call Him Jesus? Both name refer equally to the same presence.
I'll tell what I suspect; I've seen similar tactics before. I've used them.
The obscure reference sets you apart as a closer and more knowledgeable authority. A similar technique has been used by actors in pronouncing historical names, like pronouncing the Egyptian queen's name NeferTERI instead of NeferTITI. The technique seeks to imply a greater authority to the speaker than would be ordinarily gained from standard reference.
Phrases in Latin and other foreign languages impart the same thing. I use those myself for the same reason.
The problem with this reference is that it is an attempt to gain yourself from readers, not more authority of man's knowledge, but more authority of the knowledge of God. I run into to this all the time, especially from Jews who have come to the knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah.
I don't buy it, so I call you on it. You obfuscate instead of owning up to it after have been given several chances.
I believe that God blesses humility and condemns arrogance. The scriptures bear me out. But that's your problem; I just point it out.
Point the first: You seem to be under the impression that I
owe you an explanation. I do not. I have explained the "whys" of my particular custom to you as a courtesy, not because you are my judge whom I must appease.
Point the second: Nobody else seems to be confused by my use of Yeshua instead of Jesus. Therefore, your protest that someone might misunderstand me rings a little hollow.
Point the third: Having received my explanation for my custom multiple times on this thread and others, you call me a liar. Using the Lord and His Apostles' Hebrew names is not a matter of self-elevation. Perhaps you should stop claiming to see into the hearts of those you know only through their words on a computer screen, and accept their explanations at face value.
If we're going to play this game, let's put the shoe on the other foot: I've seen tactics similar to yours before. You dislike the content of the article, but having no reply to any of the substance of the arguments contained within, you have decided to find some nit to pick about the author--in this case, myself. It's called an ad hominem ("against the man").
You have received my explanation. You understand my explanation perfectly well. You just don't like it. Sorry, but I'm not changing: Our Lord was born under the name Yeshua, a Second Temple period variant of Y'hoshua, a name which was prophesied to Him four centuries before (Zec. 6:11-13). There is nothing wrong with with transliterating His Name, as the Apostles themselves did--but neither is there anything wrong with using the Name by which He was called for the 33 years that He walked this earth in such a fashion that people know what it is.
God knows the heart. He knows the heart of a person who receives salvation in the name of Jesus, and of those like myself who are called to emphasize the Jewish roots of the faith.