Well the scribes who complied the LXX weren’t exactly pagans & they used Iesous (when referring to Joshua)--& unless someone can show me ancient NT writings that pre-date the original Greek (& yes I’m well aware of the supposed earlier Hebrew or Aramaic NT versions which have never been produced—thus are only pure speculation)—then I’m saying the evidence supports that Paul, John, Peter, & the other NT writers used the name Iesous (when referring to Jesus) when they wrote the Greek autographs. Exactly what Greek letters would you have used to transliterate the Hebrew name? Further, you do realize that El was a main god in the Canaanite pantheon, thus would the plural Elohim be referring to him? And although you’re insisting on Acts 4:12 to support your point-what language do you think it was originally written in? B/c v 10 has Iesou Christou tou Nazoraion (genitive sg) which is what v 11’s houtos estin & v 12’s onama refers back to. Thus the writer of Acts (more than likely Luke) used the very name your arguing against to be the only name under heaven which men are saved. While the speech itself was probably in Aramaic (or maybe Hebrew)—the earliest record we have of it came from Greek & the writer had no problem with the Iesous name.
While it does seem you have good intentions-- I’m beginning to think you’re overzealous about matters that have no genuine impact on biblical soteriology.