text:
However, "Yeshu" is generally not the term used by Messianic Jewish Hebrew-speakers. The reason is simple: other than as the negation "may his name and memory be blotted out" (yemach shmo vezichro ימח שמו וזכרו = y-sh-v --> Yeshu יש''ו, often written without the abbreviation marks as ישו), the name has no clear meaning or origin.
Often, a Hebrew-speaking believer has the experience of being asked if she believes in "Yeshu" ישו, wherein she responds that no, she believes in "Yeshua" ישוע (which means "the Lord saves"). Her clarification then may be met by skeptical looks and the question: "who is this Yeshua?"
Is "Yeshua" Jesus' name in Hebrew? And how do we know?
I think "Yeshua" is His name, but I also am willing to be as skeptical about it as the evidence will allow me to be, and I do not want to hold this contention any stronger than the evidence suggests. Its not like there are points awarded for "just believing," when the object of belief is simply a convention-flouting lexicality. Brothers and sisters, that would be the height of randomness. On that matter, one writer Mr. Uri Yosef has insisted (warning: not much truth about Messiah in the given link) that those who call Jesus "Yeshua"--doing so with an allegedly religiously fervent certainty--are buying into a missionary conspiracy, or "a new tactic in their quest for Jewish souls." I note that he guides his historical lasers on one Martin/Moishe Rosen. Who doesn't? (I believe Mr. Rosen's organization was involved in a semantic conspiracy, but one which had to do with an annoying apostrophe unnecessarily and against all normal transliteration techniques inserted to replace an "e" of the name's tsere (which he apparently still gets grief for (but we forgive you Moishe (still, try saying the vowel ts'r' - that's different!)))).
I will refute Mr. Yosef's contentions where they appear relevantly wrong, but I admit its only a side dish. Whether a full rebuttal article or just a blog post, any piece of writing that makes his article its main course will leave the interested consumer intolerably emaciated. I hope to nourish at least a little bit! :)
But as best I can gather, the supposition is that the missionaries are out to make the person Jesus seem ... really Jewish, and thus more palatable and meaningful to those being evangelized by way of said fraudulent nom de plume. I suppose I have to momentarily bracket the point that {Jesus was (and is) Jewish} - which would imply it is not dishonest whatsoever, but simply accurate, to portray him as such. For example, I myself would want to portray Him as Jewish in any given respect, because He was (and is) Jewish. But whatever, I was supposed to be bracketing. So let me be moving on.
As for names, the article itself offers three Hebrew options to which the Greek transliteration of Jesus can refer - Yeshua, Yehoshua, and Hoshea. I should note that all three of these are closely related: 1) they are theophoric, i.e. names containing reference to the divine name, and 2) they are based on the verb root "saves" (yud-shin-ayin). And so what the author seems to be saying, or at least allowing, is that IESOUS should be taken to be one of these. And this is correct.
So what's the problem? The "name-game" revolves around, again, I suppose, a certainty which allegedly is felt apart from evidence by many believers over one particular option of the three, and the fundamentalist or anti-Jewish badness that motivates such imposed certainty. I don't know whose attitudes he is citing in particular, but I am sure he has someone out there in mind. So it becomes a chance to show how guilty those someones are of trusting their authorities at every turn (not sure if this means: don't trust your Rabbi unless he is one I agree with. but that would be amazing). Also its that the source is allegedly Christian authorities by way of many groups and/or Moishe Rosen. Its a narrative of lexicalities-gone-bad, gone-something-very-very-bad ... actually it gets off the rails for me and I am not sure what the contention really is.
Even with the charts, Mr. Yosef's article does not explore which one of those three names would be the best evidenced, and how certain it is. I think that is a crucial question. The problem is in part his sources: he says "the only available extant and authentic source material from that general period is the Talmud in its original language, Hebrew/Aramaic." And it is true that the Talmud (whether Bavli or Yerushalaymi, i.e. from Babylon or Jerusalem) won't reveal the secret that easy. But that doesn't leave us in anywhere near the 'position of no position' Mr. Yosef asserts (I am not sure I should call it that, as having three closely related options all targeted on the meaning at issue would itself be something. we'll call it the 'position of three options'). But first, the Talmud, which he says is the only good stuff from that general period, is actually not from "that general period," if he is referring to the general period of Jesus or the early Jesus-movement. The Talmud is from 200-600, whereas the general period we are interested in is the first century (about 5BCE - 70CE). This is not to say Talmud is irrelevant for that period, as it contains names and citations from that time and region, among many other times and regions. Yet the temporal and provincial differences really matter for this issue. Second, we actually do have better "extant and authentic material" which can tell us more clearly about name usage in that place and time. (If I am not mistaken, the Israel Antiquities Authority does things). Third, if we broaden out the evidence-base to include Talmud, which of course is something we should do, then there is even more evidence to help. I submit that through a sifting of the evidence and just slightly more careful methods than Mr. Yosef's, the option of 'Yeshua' emerges as by far the most probable name of the three, which is in accord with the mainstream of scholarly opinion. For practical puposes, that's a sufficient reason for adopting this as the representative name form in Hebrew. The notion that we had to defend a position of absolute certainty about the name "Yeshua" (bearing in mind this is a historical question, not a math problem) reeks of unequal weights and measures in the highest degree. But no matter: as hinted at and as should become clear below, Mr. Yosef's theses also turn out to be mostly irrelevant to the more important issue of which Hebrew usage is appropriate, the one which heads this post. In particular, he has nothing to say about the name "Yeshu" (the popular and traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew).
So all that to say, one day I got to thinking about this, and decided to write out reasons for and against using the names Yeshua and Yeshu. I've posted them by request. Such reasoning depends a great deal on whether either one actually is His Hebrew name, but also includes other issues (and who doesn't want more to blog about). As for what is, just to be clear about my view: Yeshu was almost certainly not His name, whereas Yeshua most likely was. Here it seemed to me like the best way to organize the material was on practical lines since, in the end, we want to consider the Hebrew name by which we will honor Him in practice. Also, I am not an expert on languages, philology, or ancient near east per se, so I am basically just researching and using my brain to sort it out. Note also that its mostly limited to Yeshua and Yeshu, not the use of Jesus which is standard today in English. This is somewhat arbitrary, but I am interested in considering what we call Him in Hebrew, not to argue for or against using "Jesus" in English (for the record, I am against calling Him "Jesus" in Hebrew, which you can do, and which would look very different, something like this: ג'סס. In principle I find that weird on many levels.)
Reasons for using the name "Yeshua"
1. The Greek IESOUS (which we know is a translation of some Hebrew name) corresponds to "Yeshua" in the later Biblical Hebrew texts (1 Chr. 24:11; 31:15 Ezra 2:2,6,36,40; 3:2,8,9; 4:3; 5:2; 8:33; 10:18; Neh. 3:19; 7:7,11,39,43; 8:7; 9:4,5; 10:9; 11:26; 12:1,7,8,10,24,26). This attests to widespread usage at that time. As Mr. Yosef says it:
Well, that's right. But this puts the common usage of that name close to the relevant time of the earthly life of our subject, which already makes it a preferable translation based on that background data. However, its
a. fair to note: IESOUS also corresponds to Yehoshua (Joshua) in Biblical Hebrew (as it does Joshua's earlier name, Hoshea). This name tends not to occur in Late Biblical Hebrew. Still, on the basis of the Greek alone, I would be good with treating "Yehoshua" as a possible variant (and I guess, to a lesser degree, Hoshea). Um... are you good with that? Or are you one of the someone's he was after? Perhaps there is information which would make this qualification moot (even may be discovered below under the heading "reasons for using Yeshu"). But it is unclear why such a qualification, assuming its a necessary one, should be treated as a scandalous admission by anyone. And this point that there are two possible variants is at best the most that could be gathered from Mr. Yosef's actual name-related argumentation. (though more on possible moot-ness below)
b. Still, the name Yeshua itself is most likely a late-Hebrew shortened form of Yehoshua. This is because Joshua (Yehoshua) son of Nun is recorded as Yeshua son of Nun in a later biblical text (Neh. 8:17) (Mr. Yosef records this in chart but doesn't note what significance it might have). So to treat Yehoshua and Yeshua as totally distinct game-changing options is quite a game in itself. They are forms of each other.
2. The Aramaic Peshitta uses the cognate of Yeshua. I say cognate, as from what I've been told it may only be cognate with respect to pronunciation, but its identical with respect to spelling: ישוע
3. Tal Ilan, on the basis of her wide-ranging survey of literature and archaeology, ranks it as the sixth most common male name in her Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I: Palestine 330 BCE--200 CE. Same Tal Ilan (ibid.) notes that the Yeshua form is the name of Jesus of Nazereth (citing the Tosefta Hullin 2.22 which uses Yeshua for him and not the negation or corruption "Yeshu").
With the above points in mind, here's a pushback via Mr. Yosef I feel worth addressing, because it reinforces the issue of sources. Noting the usage in his controlling source of the Talmud, he finds extremely high usage of Yehoshua (2017x), a pair of usages of Hosea (2x), in reference to the Talmudic sages.
"These results indicate that, at least among the Talmudic Sages, the names (Yehoshu'a) and (Hoshe'a) were used, while the name (Yeshu'a) never appears on the record, except in direct quotes of passages from the Hebrew Bible! This invalidates the claim that (Yeshu'a) was a popular name at the time of Jesus."[extremely minor point which also serves as a quick Hebrew time-out: putting the apostrophe where he does in Yeshua is technically inaccurate. The final vowel is a furtive patach (patach genuva), one that unlike most cases of the sound, "steals ahead" of the letter its under (that's a way to remember the hebrew name at least - "stealing patach" ;). And the ' represents the "ayin" guttural stop in the name. The general rule: whenever the patach is under a final guttural which comes after an unchangably long vowel which is not a-class (as is the case here with the shurek, the "u" vowel in Yeshua), the patach is furtive. For a more clear example, consider the word sameach or "happy," as in chag sameach. Though the "a" sound is under the guttural chet, unlike most other cases the guttural consonant "ch" follows the vowel "a." So if one wanted to be a hardcore completist, I believe one would put the guttural sound (') after the "a": Yeshua'. This info may be found in any introductory Hebrew grammar textbook.]
If right his quote would mean that Yehoshua was the more popular form of basically the same name, which we've already seen is nothing particularly sensational to expose (I am ruling out Hoshea with its 2x because we don't have any examples of the name being given with a hey, though I suppose I am not supposed to go outside the Talmud in answering the question by Mr. Yosef's lights.) But there are multiple problems here. The Late Biblical Hebrew in Nehemiah gives us Yeshua as a form of Yehoshua (son of Nun), even as texts from that time give Yeshua. Thus we know the names are forms of each other, and Yeshua was becoming a common name at that time. We also recall that the Talmud was put into writing, composed, and edited during a completely different time period than the first century. The difference between the time periods far outstrips whatever difference Mr. Yosef wants to emphasize between the names themselves. Its different, indeed, than the period of the sages who are mostly referred to (at least the ones contemporary to Messiah). We have to allow that the way someone's name is rendered in one century may be different than another, since this is the case with Yehoshua becoming Yeshua.
[As for why Yehoshua might be a more popular from to cite in Babylon, at a time much later than the 'Late Biblical Hebrew' in Israel where the form "Yeshua" became popular, which indicates a reversal of sorts... its an interesting question about which I can only speculate dangerously... One idea is that it has a lot to do with the Torah-textual character of the use of Hebrew in that diaspora community. The form Yehoshua (also Hoshea) shows up in Torah and prophets whereas Yeshua doesn't, and this Torah in particular intimately informed the language of the sages. So perhaps rendering names by the form found there would come naturally. Perhaps a better guess... Arachim 32b shows that the letter hey found in Yehoshua and not in Yeshua had theological significance, in that the hey being dropped represented the chastening hand of the divine, contrasted to the bestowal of favor to Abraham with the adding of a hey to his name. From this we could extrapolate there would be no problem calling a rejected man "Yeshu" whereas they would have a problem even calling a well-regarded sage "Yeshua" and might instead "restore" the hey. However, I don't think I can read these Talmudic-era beliefs (which while extrapolated from Torah, have their own distinct character), into a different time, place, and culture, where we would find different naming conventions. I cannot yet confirm or speak to what various beliefs on divine name alteration were at that time and place and what effect they may have had on someone's view on the relationship between Yeshua and Yehoshua. Philo, a contemporary in time if not place, comments that the change from "Hoshea" to "Joshua" for the son of Nun, noting that Moses is "displaying by his new name the distinctive qualities of his character" followed by an interpretation based on, as best I can tell, the Greek (!) in the case of Hoshea "what sort of person is this?" but the Hebrew in the case of Yehoshua "the salvation of the Lord." But so far I cannot find anything like the above, that a shortened name is dishonor, in his On the Change of Names, and he does not cite Nehemiah 8:17 in any of his extant writings. Even if I could find a view in his writings one way or the other, this would not necessarily tell us what all or even most Jews at that time believed about naming.]
4. All modern Hebrew translations of the New Covenant use Yeshua, going back to at least the 19th century. The notion that these translations "picked" Yeshua (i.e. out of the three options above) in order to perpetrate a conspiracy is simply not a serious suggestion. Beyond the fact that it is a conspiracy theory, the translations are made by heavy-hitters, scholarly speaking (Delitzsch, Ginzburg, etc.). So we would need good reasons to go against their decisions in practice.
5. The name has also been used without controversy within Jewish tradition. Kai Kjaer Hansen notes:"In his prolegomena to Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (Jerusalem, 1940, pp. 215-216), Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the father of Ivrit, deals with the name of Jesus. Here the name of Jesus is mentioned explicitly at least 8 times, and every time the form Yeshua is used" (note: Prof. Hansen gives plenty more citations of relevant uses of "Yeshua" in Jewish tradition for Jesus, including Maimonides in early texts of Iggeret Teman, parts of the polemical Toldoth Yeshu, and early texts and explanatory notes to Mishnah, but being where I am I have not been able to check most of them. That said, I have no good good reason to doubt him.)
6. Its root meaning explains the key text where his name is introduced (Matt. 20:21), as well as having theological significance for his character. (note: taken alone this point only favors using one of the forms from yasha to which IESOUS translates, but that is enough for considering Yeshua which does and Yeshu which does not.) If a text is made meaningless by adopting one practice, and meaningful by adopting another, all things being equal we should choose the second. And this is distinct from the issue of the text's inspiration.
Reasons against using Yeshua (with some responses):
1. It was concocted (or "revived") by modern Hebrew-Christian movements for the purposes of evangelism.
a. The idea that it was "concocted" seems to have caught on among some, but its clearly false. It is so clearly false that those who perpetrate this idea have no scholarly credibility. Just see the above. If it was only "revived," and I certainly think it was to some degree, it is unclear why this is a reason not to use it. Some people's purposes are to communicate the Jewishness of Jesus, and others may find this suspect. But for my part I do not see what is wrong with the motivation. Why shouldn't the Good News be put in terms more amenable and clarifying, including calling the Jewish Messiah by His name?
2. It is offensive to use a Hebrew name for Jesus that is not recognized by traditional Judaism.
a. While I do not want to be insensitive on this point, we have to be wary here of political correctness. If the recognized term Yeshu is wrong, misleading, or inappropriate on other grounds, it would seem unwise to adopt it merely to avoid offense. That's something I'll explore below. But also, its use in the Tosefta, as well as Ben Eliezer, not to mention Maimonides and the Toldoth Yeshu itself (the latter two I haven't gotten to check) would mean that the name is in fact recognized.
Summary: I think reasons like these are about as good as history can get in determining that His Hebrew name was Yeshua (not to say the reasons are close to exhaustive). The reasons to avoid its use anyway are quite weak.
Reasons for using the name "Yeshu"
1. It is the name we have for him from the Talmud, and is thus His traditional Jewish and Hebrew name.
a. As mentioned, it seems to be used there as a negation. So that is unhelpful if one wants to refer to Him by name.
b. Some, however, have suggested that Yeshu may have evolved from Yeshua as a shortened form of it. It has likewise been suggested that the final ayin, while appearing originally in the written form, was left off the pronunciation by 1st century Galilean speakers, and that this led to it being left off in writing in later Jewish texts. Only later was it attached to the negation formula "may his name and memory be blotted out."
i. Perhaps this is speculative, but if true (and see the above linked Prof. Kjaer-Hansen for an interesting theory about it), it also would qualify b. as yet another reason to legitimately use the earlier form, Yeshua (as opposed to the other options brought up by Mr. Yosef). Even if the final ayin was only in writing and not pronounced (with the extra syllable and guttural) by certain Galileans, and even if this led to its use as such in Jewish tradition, the written form then is what provides appropriate significance and meaning today (see point 6 above for example). It would take a very odd sort of nativist combination to attempt to use in normal practice a hypothetical pronunciation from 2000 years ago, all the while committed to the correct and well-attested written form, when the latter is pronunced in a different way today. That would confuse everyone in ways which are simply impractical. We should note that this hypothesis if confirmed would indicate that Yeshua was more likely His name as opposed to other two Hebrew options offered by Mr. Yosef, since Yeshu would be far more likely to evolve from Yeshua than Hoshea, and would require at least another step from Yehoshua. That also makes Mr. Yosef's silence on "Yeshu" problematic.
2. A negation SHOULD be used and not his real name since Jews do not believe in Him, and thus should not utter the name of a strange god.
a. I don't think we should take this point lightly. It shows that it is not mere semantics and not mere spite - unfortunately two explanations I've heard from fellow followers of Yeshua - but a genuine theological conviction which not only can motivate but perhaps did motivate the conscious use of Yeshu as negation (bearing in mind that most are not conscious at all that it is such). Hence, should not a reclamation of that name likewise should be met on theological grounds, not only semantical grounds? It is on the basis that Yeshua is in fact, the Jewish Messiah, the manifestation of the God of Israel Who is our Salvation, that I use His real Hebrew name.
b. This is not to make a non-believer be inconsistent or "trapped" if she uses the name which fits a conviction they don't hold. Yeshua is still a name which is historical and correct, and can be used on those grounds. Rather, my point is he is the Messiah! Yeshua is not a foreign god; rather, He is the God of Israel come in the flesh. Using "Yeshua" is not a last-ditch effort at disguising "Yeshu" to get those who don't follow Him to be inconsistent, but a simple restoration which, taken within this dialectic, can point to some deeper truths. The name's overall consistency with historical data is for some of us of one cloth with its consistency with biblical, Jewish truth.
3. Hebrew speaking and/or Jewish believers themselves may wish to be respectful of Jesus' actual name, i.e. to not use it in vain, or in public context.
i. The negation "may his name be blotted out forever" (Yeshu) would not perform that respect, in my opinion - even if it was originally a "nick-name."
ii. Nor could one do this through the use of "Jesus" since this is itself an English transliteration of the Greek transliteration (IESOUS) of the Hebrew name (most probably Yeshua). I mention this, again, not to argue against using "Jesus" in English, but because one friend (who took deep offense at using the name Yeshua) thought that 'Jesus' was some sort of alternative given name, the way one might be called "Mark" in public, but "Moshe" when being called up to read the Torah or participate in other aspects of synagogue. In reality, if Yeshua had any non-Hebrew names for public use, we don't have them.
iii. there is no evidence that we are expected NOT to refer to the Messiah by His name in order to be respectful. On the other hand, the text seems to imply calling on His name is a good thing! ;)
iv. it would reflect bad exegesis of the commandment, "Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
3. In Hebrew, Yeshu is the most recognizable name today for the person Yeshua and need not be seen as negation. (in my opinion, this is probably the best argument for using Yeshu and not Yeshua.)
a. However, it may be asked, is the use based on ignorance of the negation-origin, or is it aware of the negation-origin? b. If through ignorance, the ignorance may be healed through better information like the above. And in general, this means using the name Yeshua, otherwise the matter is "in the closet." If its done with awareness of negation, then how can Yeshu be seen as an appropriate name? Here the pragmatic value of keeping the status quo seems overwhelmed by the altogether importance of truth in general and truth with respect to the person of Yeshua.
In sum: None of the arguments (i could think of) for using "Yeshu" carry the day. However, since it is recognizable and popular for reasons unrelated to the traditional practice negating His real name, believers need to be sensitive and wise in how they treat the issue. Its not a point for defensiveness, but dialogue. That said, even as the weight of evidence is heavily for "Yeshua," so also one's practice of using that name can be well-grounded, and indeed should be. Yay facts!
Reasons against using Yeshu
1. Apart from a few possible exceptions, it doesn't exist as a root or name in 1st century in Hebrew or Aramaic. So it is highly unlikely to actually be His name.
2. It indeed functions as an acrostic meaning "may His name be blotted out forever."
This is a work in progress. Its open to helpful additions.


text:
Hello dear ladies and gentlemen, distinguished members of our Global InterGold family!
Today I want to share with you several key points, such as people's goals and the way they set goals for expected results.
First of all, let's define the word goal.
A goal is an achievable result for a certain period of time.
As our President said, "a goal is a precise understanding of what we want to achieve." In my view, it is important to know what we all want, how we want to achieve it and, no less important, when we want to achieve it. If a person doesn't have a clear goal, then he/she doesn't know the way how to achieve it: what needs to be done, in what direction one should move and how to take momentary action.
Let's take a sailboat and a sailor for example. If a sailor sets a goal, knowing where to sail, what speed is needed and what is the direction of the wind, then he/she hoists the sail properly to reach the destination.
My advice for you is, if you set a goal for yourself, then write it down.
A goal can be set for a year, 6 months or a month.
The next thing you do, you divide a big goal into small weekly/daily ones.
Why is it so important?
Because if you don't have a written goal, then you work towards achieving other people's goals and not your own goal.
It's that simple, if there's no goal, there's no motivation, no inspiration, one cannot act effectively without a goal, and there's no result, just a waste of time.
However, I am aware of the fact that you make serious preparations, and that you write down your goals that give you an opportunity to check yourself on the pathway to realization of your goals. You can monitor your progress daily and praise yourself for the achievements. Can you grasp the importance of it? You become self-confident, you get inspired, moreover, you set the example in your family and later in your group.
We've done the research and it showed that you have set important goals in life, specifically, a goal to achieve financial security. 87% of respondents emphasized the importance of this factor that can help create a better world for your loved ones and improve the level of the overall well-being.
What financial security means? Why so many people want to attain it? Because it is larger than life!
First of all, financial security is the absence of debts that need to be repaid. This is a state when there is no threat for you and your family, this is a state when your vital interests are fully protected. Financial security is the core belief that you will never lose your property, and the freedom of choosing how to lead own's life won't ever be taken away.
The key idea of financial security is very simple - you live in a state of financial security if your income exceeds your expenses.
That's why people are striving to achieve it.
You have a goal how to achieve it, and we're here to help you, as our president once said:" our goals coincide, and we share the same path."
We believe that it is easier to achieve the goal in a group setting, rather than on your own, since everyone have different goals. But if there's a common goal in a group, then it is easier to achieve it. We are in the same boat and we pull in the same direction together as one.
That means: to achieve financial security, create a better world and improve the quality of life for our clients.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
(Direct download link)
Episode 29: Islamic Investing with Fatima Iqbal
Topics Covered:
-How Fatima got involved in Islamic Finance
-Why is the US behind other countries in Islamic finance?
-Advice for someone who wants to start investing
-What your financial picture should look like before investing
-Assessing the risk of investing
-Retirement goals
-7 Tenets of Halal Investing
-Estate planning
Connect With Azzad Funds
-Twitter: https://twitter.com/
If you enjoyed this podcast, please take a minute to share with a friend and RATE and SUBSCRIBE in iTunes.
- iTunes Link: http://bit.ly/dfmpodcast
- Stitcher Radio: http://bit.ly/
- Android (RSS): http://bit.ly/
You can also visit our website and sign up for the email list to be notified of new episodes, articles, and get our FREE ebook – A Practical Guide to Debt and Personal Finance for Muslims: http://


text:
Afellay completes transfer
Midfielder Ibrahim Afellay said he was prepared to fight for his place in the Barcelona team after completing his transfer from PSV Eindhoven on Friday. Speaking in perfect Spanish to the media, the 24-year-old said joining the Spanish giants was like a dream, adding "when I was a kid, I wanted to play for Barca." Andoni Zubizarreta, Barcelona's sporting director, said Afellay signed a four-and-a-half year contract and PSV were paid 3 million euros (US$4 million) for the player. The two clubs reached an agreement over the transfer on Nov. 15. "We have absolutely no plans to sign anybody else during this transfer window," Zubizarreta said. Afellay is one of a long line of Netherlands players to have joined Barcelona, beginning with Johan Cruyff and including Johan Neeskens, Ronald Koeman, Patrick Kluivert and former coach Frank Rijkaard. "Players from Holland have always been welcome here," Afellay said. "Players like Cruyff or Kluivert are very well known and they have told me this is the best club in the world." Afellay acknowledged it will be tough to make his mark within the team. "That's normal at a club like this where there are so many quality players, but I'll fight for my place," he said. Afellay was in the Netherlands squad which reached this year's World Cup final, making three substitute appearances.
Smith has Test cap stolen
South Africa captain Graeme Smith appealed for help on Twitter on Friday after discovering his much-loved match cap had been stolen ahead of the second Test against India. Smith said his green Proteas cap, which he was given for his first Test in 2002, had gone missing while he traveling from Cape Town to Durban for the match, which begins today. "Realise this is a long shot, but had my test cap that I've used since my 1st test for proteas stolen on travel up to durbs," Smith tweeted. "Cap means a lot to me so if you know anything pls give me a shout......thx." Many players attach sentimental value caps awarded on their Test debuts. Former Australia star Steve Waugh kept the same cap throughout his 168-Test career.
Besiktas snap up Almeida
Besiktas have signed Portugual striker Hugo Almeida from Werder Bremen on a three-and-a-half-year contract. In a statement posted on their Web site on Friday, Besiktas said they will pay Werder Bremen 2 million euros (US$2.6 million). The 26-year-old Almeida joins compatriot Simao Sabrosa at the Turkish club after the winger signed from Atletico Madrid earlier on Friday.
Diego threatens legal action
Diego Maradona threatened legal action against Argentine soccer association president Julio Grondona on Friday. "I am not going to go on about Grondona. I am going directly to see my lawyers to start an action after all he has said. He has lost control," Maradona told the Clarin newspaper. Maradona and Grondona have been at loggerheads since the Argentine soccer legend was deposed as coach following the team's defeat by Germany at the World Cup quarter-finals. On Thursday, the 79-year-old Grondona hit back at Maradona for describing him as "senile." "I am not senile, I am not an informer and I never will be," he said. "One day he [Maradona] loves you, the next he hates you. There are reasons for this, we all know what they are," added Grondona, alluding to Maradona's battle with drugs. Maradona insisted on Friday that he is free of drug and alcohol problems. "I haven't taken anything for six years, not even a glass of wine."


text:
In Coaching, Olympic Lifts, Videos
March 25, 2011
Working his magic on Dave Lipson, Coach Mike Burgener refines the split jerk by breaking down the movement and rebuilding it.
"The goal is to dip and drive that bar overhead in one complete movement with no press-out, no pressing or rebending of the arms," Burgener says.
In Part 3, Coach Burgener emphasizes the importance of footwork and landing in a shallow lunge.
"When the CrossFit athlete goes into the jerk, the split, hell, they want to go into a deep walking lunge almost," he says. But according to Burgener, the shorter lunge is more stable and recoverable.
Burgener hones Lipson's technique through coaching points and focused practice to develop his speed because he's already strong. Burgener turns his coach's eye first on breathing consistency, then the dip. Timing is everything.
"When those feet hit, I want my hands to be locked out at the same time. If they're not locked out, I'm not going to make that lift," he says.
18min 33sec
Video by Again Faster.
Additional reading: Teaching the Jerk by Mike Burgener with Tony Budding, published May 1, 2007.
2 Comments on "Developing the Behind-the-Neck Split Jerk With Coach B: Part 3"
wrote …
good stuff...
wrote …
If you can't learn from this man, well.... you need to do something else. Really great stuff.
My only question/complaint is the disconnect I have between the on-screen image and voice. This one is about 3-4 secnds different and makes it a little difficult to follow when pointing out Dave's form. Is this a "me" problem? Otherwise the camera work and setting are just fine.
Did I see somewhere where Lipson was a pitcher?


text:
- Wangdor Rimpoche
- My heart teacher and a master of Dzogchen--Direct Mind Perception Meditation
- The Foundation for Shamanic Studies
- A most excellent and highly reputable organization for training, research, and study into shamanic methods and their modern and historical uses.
- J. Crow Company
- They sell spiced cider but also much, much, more--excellent oils, herbs, incense, and wonderful liks to things Tibetan and yes, crows.
- Astrology and Chaos
- Interesting theoretical work linking astrological principles with modern chaos theory. Esoteric, but well worth reading and pondering.
- Astrology
- More astrological information and resources.
- Tarol Tools and Rites of Transformation
- What is Tarot, and how does it work? What can it do for you?
For appointment....
Email Joy at email@example.com,
or phone (415) 691-6019 (US)
91-981677080 (India).


text:
Marriott BonvoyTM |
Relax in an urban oasis of tranquil comfort in New Jersey by exploring the natural beauty of Woodcliff Lake. Nestled in the midst of woodlands and surrounded by lush wetlands, a natural stream and pristine landscapes. This location offers the perfect setting for a weekend escape, romantic getaway, or family retreat.
And remember, Vacations by Marriott is the only place you can book a complete vacation with airfare and earn Marriott BonvoyTM points!
Style, sophistication, and a convenient Woodcliff Lake-area location set the Park Ridge Marriott apart from other hotels in Northern New Jersey. You'll be delighted with our stunning surroundings and outstanding amenities. Step into our recently refreshed hotel lobby and enjoy free Wi-Fi access, or stretch out in your well-appointed room or suite, which offers plush bedding, premium bath amenities, and flat-screen TVs.


text:
On the subject of selecting the perfect remodeling firm in your dwelling or enterprise, you want the reassurance that they are taking your mission as severe as you. The following paragraphs summarize the work of improvements consultants who're fully aware of all the elements of improvements. For considerations associated to road or lane lighting other than the set up of recent block lighting: Lighting Systems Engineer, Transportation Division, Public Works at 204-986-6227.
It is quit unlucky to note that almost all of us think about making improvements to our lives a willful problem. Professionals, just like the workforce at Aspen Home Improvements , can get your new doors put in so rapidly you will barely even discover the chilly! The improvements in mobile web technology give its users a a lot quicker and reliable cellular web connection.
Upon graduation, they obtain a highschool diploma in addition to an Associates degree (or faculty credit score). The rates, in case your credit is sweet, are great and so they're often accepted pretty shortly and painlessly. Improvements will tackle safety, queuing and delays and will assist to enhance journey occasions alongside Highway 1 and the Lower Lynn Interchanges.
There's no must do any research on what to with your previous windows if you employed Aspen Home Improvements in your window alternative! Find out when you want your landlord's permission to make improvements to your non-public, council or housing association residence.
Involved in the means of vendor choice, allotment of the EPC contractor (Bechtel), expertise choice and bringing effective enchancment within the process, high quality and operational performance. Today there are a variety of fine plans for financing home improvements on reasonable phrases.


text:
I love books, and I love reading. Classic literature has always held a special place in my heart, and even though it can be tough to slog through at times, I love it. I mean, I was an English major in college. I'm ALL ABOUT classic lit, y'all, and I get so excited when I see people take classic literature and do a creative or modern spin on it. I even like it when it isn't that great. *shrugs and winks at Kenneth Branagh's musical version of Love's Labour's Lost*
(I'll just leave this here if you've never seen it)
Regardless, I love it when people are so influenced by classic literature that they create something new and creative based on the classic work. If you haven't seen any modern re-tellings of classic lit (chances are you have and you just didn't know it), here are five you should start with:
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (based on Pride and Prejudice)
This one is in theaters right now, so you can see it on the big screen–which I highly recommend. This movie has enough tips of the hat to the original Jane Austen novel while maintaining a pretty solid zombie story–all the while not taking itself too seriously. The movie is a riot, and I defy you to not utterly fall in love with Matt Smith's Parson Collins.
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew)
Incidentally, this also happens to be one of my favorite Heath Ledger performances. Made in the heyday of the late 90s/early 00s teen movie, this flick takes a modern spin on Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew in a great way. Don't get me wrong, this is most definitely a teen flick, so it's a bit goofy in places, but it brings Shakespeare's story into a modern light in a creative and fun way. Plus, I've never met a human who doesn't love this movie.
Bridget Jones's Diary (based on Pride and Prejudice)
I don't care what you say, I love this movie (and the books–though I've not read Mad About the Boy). The story is light and fun, and Bridget is just hilarious to me. I also love how infatuated Bridget is with Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the books. Obviously they couldn't recreate that in the movies (though they did make it a special feature on the Edge of Reason DVD, I think), but having Firth play Mark Darcy almost made it a private joke between the filmmakers and the fans of the book. Plus, if you don't love Colin Firth and Hugh Grant fighting awkwardly to "It's Raining Men", I'll fight you. Watch it here:
She's the Man (based on Twelfth Night)
Oh, Amanda Bynes…. The flick was made in her early 2000s, teen romantic comedy heyday, and has always been one of my faves. Also starring a younger Channing Tatum, this movie brings Shakespeare's Twelfth Night into modernity in a fun and goofy movie. Don't get me wrong, this is no 10 Things I Hate About You, but this is vintage, pre-breakdown Amanda Bynes and always takes me back to my high school days.
Warm Bodies (based on Romeo and Juliet)
I can't speak highly enough of this movie–or the novel by Isaac Marion upon which the film is based. It takes the zombie genre and turns it on its head a bit by showing us a world where "zombies" aren't actually the walking dead (meaning nothing more than a reanimated corpse with no human soul inside). Zombies are more like really, really sick people who can ultimately be cured–without being as heavy as something like In the Flesh. Making our Romeo a zombie (called R) and our Juliet (called Julie) a human living in one of the last remaining human strongholds takes the "star-crossed lovers" thing to a whole different level. Plus, it takes the story away from the occasionally eye roll-inducing story of two infatuated teens who end up offing themselves thanks to ill-advised, rash decisions to two people trying to survive in a world gone mad. Plus, Marion writes R some truly beautiful internal monologue in his book. Seriously, the film is great, but you're really missing out if you don't read Marion's novel, too.
What are some of your favorite films that take classic literature and give it a twist? Have you seen any of the films on my list? Let me know in the comments!


text:
Welcome to CARS-INFO
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Oils and Lubricants
8 Item(s)
Currently Shopping by:
Company: "Aldarest" OU
Address:Joe 5, Tallinn Estonia 10151
Working Days/Hours:Mon - Fri / 9:00AM - 5:00PM
Get all the latest information on Events,Sales and Offers. Sign up for newsletter today.
Enter your e-mail Address


text:
Yubz Rotating Speaker Dock for iPhone or iPod Touch
Yubz latest is a Rotating Speaker for your iPhone or iPod Touch. You just dock your device in this speaker and you can watch or listen to your iPhone/iPod vertically or horizontally since the speaker station will turn the device 90°.
It will recharge the device as you are enjoying both music and videos. It features multi-dimensional acoustic performance from YUBZ's advanced Sound Space 2.0 technology. It's a tad expensive at $149.99, but hey, it rotates. Yours probably doesn't do that.
[Chip Chick]
TAGS: Dock, iPhone, iPod Touch, rotating, speaker, Yubz