Peter's Vision

[Guest Ken Rank]

Shiloh, first of all, I am just a guy trying to reason through scripture like anyone else. What perturbs me about the attitude of some on this board is they have no idea how their words profane the holy. Whether we feel holy or consider ourselves worthy to be called holy, God said we are holy and that settles it. And when we strive against one another, contend, degrade, cause divisions, we are profaning the holy.

Correcting your errors does not "profane the holy." I will not be intimidated by that kind of nonsense.

As for your post. I have searched numerous etymology sites, and the consensus among them is summed up in this explanation:

"The name Jesus is an anglicized form of the Latin Iesus, which itself is derived from the Greek name Iesous. Iesous was the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua, which itself was the later Aramaic form of the Hebrew name Yehoshua."

Strongs and Thayer both say that "Jesus" stems from H3091, Yehoshua. While I am not going to deny that today Yeshua is a Hebrew word, as is Tammuz, your attitude toward me gives me no reason to continue any discussion with you. You know nothing about me, what I believe, what I seek to learn, nothing. But what is clear, I can learn nothing from you.

Your problem is you are trying to refute something I did not say. Actually you have a lot to learn, regardless of who it is from. And I really don't care if you respond to me or not. As long as you post error, I will respond to you for the sake of other readers. Your response is not necessary.

As stated, your version and the version of Strong's, Thayer, and at least 10 other Lexicons, plus the multiple etymology sites I have been through stand opposed. Yet, I do not call YOUR position error. I guess you need the feeling of superiority to exist in your faith by speaking down to others you believe are lesser then you. I really don't know what your problem is, nor do I understand why you "seek" contention? I use Yehoshua because all sources I have searched say this is what "Jesus" is based on. Yes, Yeshua is Hebrew TODAY... but it wasn't in Joshua's day. But that is how I see it, I never suggested you needed to.

My errors.... as if this is some kind of contest! Grow up Shiloh!

Edited November 9, 2009 by Ken Rank

[nebula]

I use Yehoshua because all sources I have searched say this is what "Jesus" is based on. Yes, Yeshua is Hebrew TODAY... but it wasn't in Joshua's day.

In Joshua's day?

What about 1st century Israel?

[Guest shiloh357]

As stated, your version and the version of Strong's, Thayer, and at least 10 other Lexicons, plus the multiple etymology sites I have been through stand opposed.

No, not really because I did not say that Yeshua was not Aramaic. I did not claim that all of your lexicons and etymology sites were wrong. I simply took issue with your statement that Yeshua is not a Hebrew word.

Yet, I do not call YOUR position error. I guess you need the feeling of superiority to exist in your faith by speaking down to others you believe are lesser then you.

Well for one thing, my position isn't in error, and secondly, even if you did refer to my position in error, I would not respond to you like with inordinate defensiveness; instead I would show that my postion has merit and why, which all I have done.

I really don't know what your problem is, nor do I understand why you "seek" contention?

I don't seek contention, but I will correct error. That is nature of beast around here. We debate everything around here. Like I said, whether you respond is up to you. I will still respond to your error whether you speak to me again or not.

I use Yehoshua because all sources I have searched say this is what "Jesus" is based on. Yes, Yeshua is Hebrew TODAY... but it wasn't in Joshua's day.

irrelevant. You said it is not a Hebrew word. I simply pointed out that it IS a Hebrew word. The fact remains that the word WAS a Hebrew word in Yeshua's day. That is what they called Him, like it or not.

My errors.... as if this is some kind of contest! Grow up Shiloh!

It's not a contest, and yes you have made plenty of errors particularly where your hermeneutics are concerned. I realize you are not going to let facts get in the way of your psuedo-messianic nonsense.

[Guest Ken Rank]

I use Yehoshua because all sources I have searched say this is what "Jesus" is based on. Yes, Yeshua is Hebrew TODAY... but it wasn't in Joshua's day.

In Joshua's day?

What about 1st century Israel?

Again, the lexicons say Jesus = Yehoshua. I can only go by the sources I am provided.

[Guest Ken Rank]

As stated, your version and the version of Strong's, Thayer, and at least 10 other Lexicons, plus the multiple etymology sites I have been through stand opposed.

No, not really because I did not say that Yeshua was not Aramaic. I did not claim that all of your lexicons and etymology sites were wrong. I simply took issue with your statement that Yeshua is not a Hebrew word.

Yet, I do not call YOUR position error. I guess you need the feeling of superiority to exist in your faith by speaking down to others you believe are lesser then you.

Well for one thing, my position isn't in error, and secondly, even if you did refer to my position in error, I would not respond to you like with inordinate defensiveness; instead I would show that my postion has merit and why, which all I have done.

I really don't know what your problem is, nor do I understand why you "seek" contention?

I don't seek contention, but I will correct error. That is nature of beast around here. We debate everything around here. Like I said, whether you respond is up to you. I will still respond to your error whether you speak to me again or not.

I use Yehoshua because all sources I have searched say this is what "Jesus" is based on. Yes, Yeshua is Hebrew TODAY... but it wasn't in Joshua's day.

irrelevant. You said it is not a Hebrew word. I simply pointed out that it IS a Hebrew word. The fact remains that the word WAS a Hebrew word in Yeshua's day. That is what they called Him, like it or not.

My errors.... as if this is some kind of contest! Grow up Shiloh!

It's not a contest, and yes you have made plenty of errors particularly where your hermeneutics are concerned. I realize you are not going to let facts get in the way of your psuedo-messianic nonsense.

I would imagine Shiloh, that if we were to sit down over some fruit of the vine, and discussed what we each believe, that we would agree well over 95% of the time. I have now "repeatedly" admitted that Yeshua is a more modern Hebrew word, and yet you do not let it go. So do not tell me you don't "seek" contention, that is all I have received from you. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to "point out my errors," yet have done so in a way that will never allow us to fellowship. You have drawn the same line between us that Judah once did with the gentiles. You have caused division between brethren, when there aught not be. I would think there would be some love in your words as you correct a brother, rather then jump straight to a rebuking phase that again, was not needed.

You sit here believing every aspect of your theology is correct, and yet you are still corruptible. By default, that means that not everything you hold dear is correct. You likely have knowledge others may glean from, and because of that I will leave you alone from this day forward. But one thing is also clear, you are pretty puffed up on pride. I wish you well regardless.

Shalom.

Ken

Edited November 10, 2009 by Ken Rank

[Guest shiloh357]

I would imagine Shiloh, that if we were to sit down over some fruit of the vine, and discussed what we each believe, that we would agree well over 95% of the time. I have now "repeatedly" admitted that Yeshua is a more modern Hebrew word, and yet you do not let it go.

Because it is not a "more modern Hebrew word." It is a Hebrew word that exists as early as the days of King David. There is nothing "modern" about it.

So do not tell me you don't "seek" contention, that is all I have received from you.

No, "contention" is what you accuse me of for simply pointing out your error in this matter.

You seem to have taken it upon yourself to "point out my errors," yet have done so in a way that will never allow us to fellowship.

I said nothing wrong. I simply pointed out the truth. YOU responded in an arrogant manner that prevented fellowship. I did not make this personal, YOU did.

You have caused division between brethren, when there aught not be.

The division only exists because you continued to read into my words things I was not saying and were trying to refute arguments I did not raise. Had you bothered to read, instead of reacting to what you thought I was saying, there would not have been such a problem.

You sit here believing every aspect of your theology is correct,

No, I am simply confident in the fact that Yeshua is an ancient Hebrew word

By default, that means that not everything you hold dear is correct.

I never said everything I say is right.

But one thing is also clear, you are pretty puffed up on pride.

The only one being prideful is you. I simply presented the truth.

[Guest Ken Rank]

In circles we go Shiloh. I am sure you have been given knowledge which you can impart to others. Please have at it and be blessed.

Shalom.

Ken

[EricH]

This is where I think you are creating a straw man. There are actually three positions regarding the relationship of Gentile believers to ethnic Israel:

1. Covenant Theology (sometimes referred to as Replacement Theology)

[Guest Ken Rank]

Brother,

I was responding to this quote from you:

Modern Christianity says no, the "church" is unique. I rather think that isn't the case... but it is my opinion and need not be yours.

Peace.

Ken

It took me a minute to go back through our posts to see where the misunderstanding is... and it was with me. My quote above was not worded in any coherant way Eric, to which I apologize. I should have worded it in this manner: "Modern Christianity says the "church" is unique. I rather think that is not the case. We get "church" from ekklēsia yet the word means to call out, a gathering, an assembly. The word ekklēsia was used in the LXX in places, one of which was when God "called his people to assemble" at the base of Mt. Sinai. So if ekklēsia means church, then the church was also gathered at the base of Sinai.

A second point. All of the above positions are based upon what the adherents of those think the scriptures say. You are not unique in that. The issue is not one position (or person in your case) looking at the scriptures and the rest of us making up systems. The issue is a difference in opinion in what the scriptures seem to indicate. Your opinion is no different in any one elses in that regard (i.e. it is based on your understanding of the scriptures). All of us are interested in what the scriptures say. To imply otherwise is not fair.

Eric, I don't know what "category" I fall under when it comes to understanding and positions. I am sure Shiloh would love the chance to tag me with with some title. But I realize and understand the vast differences in position and understanding with the church (using it as is used today) and I have no problem with it. I see a handful of positions that we all essentially agree on, and the rest is both conversation and nothing to divide over. I believe we should all be free to draw our own conclusions and that heresy in it's original form was to attempt to force a people using scripture (or a bastardized version of it) to adhere to their view rather than their own. I also believe, as a side note, that the word heresy was redefined by heretics. The winners get to do that.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Peace.

Ken

[EricH]

Brother,

I was responding to this quote from you:

Modern Christianity says no, the "church" is unique. I rather think that isn't the case... but it is my opinion and need not be yours.

Peace.

Ken

It took me a minute to go back through our posts to see where the misunderstanding is... and it was with me. My quote above was not worded in any coherant way Eric, to which I apologize. I should have worded it in this manner: "Modern Christianity says the "church" is unique. I rather think that is not the case. We get "church" from ekklēsia yet the word means to call out, a gathering, an assembly. The word ekklēsia was used in the LXX in places, one of which was when God "called his people to assemble" at the base of Mt. Sinai. So if ekklēsia means church, then the church was also gathered at the base of Sinai.

A second point. All of the above positions are based upon what the adherents of those think the scriptures say. You are not unique in that. The issue is not one position (or person in your case) looking at the scriptures and the rest of us making up systems. The issue is a difference in opinion in what the scriptures seem to indicate. Your opinion is no different in any one elses in that regard (i.e. it is based on your understanding of the scriptures). All of us are interested in what the scriptures say. To imply otherwise is not fair.

Eric, I don't know what "category" I fall under when it comes to understanding and positions. I am sure Shiloh would love the chance to tag me with with some title. But I realize and understand the vast differences in position and understanding with the church (using it as is used today) and I have no problem with it. I see a handful of positions that we all essentially agree on, and the rest is both conversation and nothing to divide over. I believe we should all be free to draw our own conclusions and that heresy in it's original form was to attempt to force a people using scripture (or a bastardized version of it) to adhere to their view rather than their own. I also believe, as a side note, that the word heresy was redefined by heretics. The winners get to do that.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Peace.

Ken

No problem, bro. Thanks for the clarification