Is that His real name Jesus?

[Kelly2363]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

It was Ancient, not Shannon, who asked for forgiveness.

Shannon is the person who's avatar name is Ancient. 

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Does not change my position. It is good that he asked forgiveness but not good that he did not endeavor to make amends as best possible in a cyber forum. Leaving was not the scriptural response (John 3:19). Appealing to others passions is gaslighting. So is the insinuation we're all like him. Saying others have also done wrong is a tu quoque argument. Appealing to "balance" is immaterial; it's a red herring (and he has no idea how many others were admonished). If he wants to last then he'll want to learn how to post.

I may give him some lesson if he asks me - on the other hand he may not ask me. So on a simple balance of probability - seeing as the Jury is out on that one - whereas the judgement is already in - I will more than likely watch with a stern gaze. 

The Judgement

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

You and I both know most trolls don't last and one of the reasons is because they feel attacked when no one is attacking them. They come into a forum to tell every how and what to believe arguing ad hominem against anyone who has different pov seeing attacks where none exist and then when the mods intervene they say, "You do it too!" So whether or not he returns to this op is moot. The last portion of my previous post gives him an opportunity to get back on topic and to do so in several ways. It has the potential for him to redeem his own op. 

 

I have no inclination to view anyone as you have described my knowing. 

The Press Report

I'm only guessing here but Australians spent almost 200 years being graciously taught by a British establishment that made of the whip and the keel and the gallows a seeming reasonable entrance into the kingdom of heaven. I have a sense that Shannon won't be bending to anything that remotely resembles a British sense of decency. And so being British myself I opted to take a more reconciliatory tone that did not defeat my sense of despair at the Hebrew movement with its mistaken revisionist agenda and decided to see that Ancient is called Shannon and Shannon is a lovely pentecostal believer from Irish stock that is learning to speak in new tongues. 

It's just a preference in how one sees others. I see people and not their manners once their manners have knocked me out of my chair. 

 

 

 

[Alive]

8 minutes ago, pinacled said:

Preference is typically an intentional profane changing of The Divine Name.

 

Could you explain what this means?

[Alive]

16 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

Shannon is the person who's avatar name is Ancient. 

I may give him some lesson if he asks me - on the other hand he may not ask me. So on a simple balance of probability - seeing as the Jury is out on that one - whereas the judgement is already in - I will more than likely watch with a stern gaze. 

The Judgement

 

I have no inclination to view anyone as you have described my knowing. 

The Press Report

I'm only guessing here but Australians spent almost 200 years being graciously taught by a British establishment that made of the whip and the keel and the gallows a seeming reasonable entrance into the kingdom of heaven. I have a sense that Shannon won't be bending to anything that remotely resembles a British sense of decency. And so being British myself I opted to take a more reconciliatory tone that did not defeat my sense of despair at the Hebrew movement with its mistaken revisionist agenda and decided to see that Ancient is called Shannon and Shannon is a lovely pentecostal believer from Irish stock that is learning to speak in new tongues. 

It's just a preference in how one sees others. I see people and not their manners once their manners have knocked me out of my chair. 

 

 

 

LOL--well perhaps not out loud.

I see some clever bit of what has been referenced civility by Brits practicing "civility is the glue that holds society together" with knife firmly in hand.

Whether so or not---some clever. Veiled, perhaps--but clever.

Let's all speak in a recognized tongue when in assembly.

[Kelly2363]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I stand corrected. 

You might want to check this out HERE and HERE. I did not get to ask him if these were his sites, but if it is then it would be good if he was more forthcoming. Yes? Don't you think anyone entering an international internet forum intended to inform others should be able to handle some very basic valid inquiries and engage at least some of the very elementary disagreements posted here? 

 

Yes they are his! I also found several press reports in Australia. He did post the url - albeit he mistyped it - from the first link and @Alive removed it as self promotion. Which is precisely what I believed when I first saw the link. 

Given the time he has been involved in the Hebrew roots movement I agree that he should have formulated a more rational approach - especially as he preaches like a dead fish. But I listened to the first broadcast of the radio program that aired a few weeks ago and I liked Shannon simply because I believe he is genuine.

His understanding of the various denominational churches approach to the Hebrew roots movement isn't mistaken and I expect that has shaped his reactions somewhat over the years.

If an Irishman came into my meeting and started presenting like a Jew I would more than likely throw him off the roof. The only mercy would be that I would throw myself off with him. After all, Adonai must love one of us, and so that tends to ensure that we hold onto one another as we fall. But then I'm not known for being shy on speaking plainly. And nether does anyone doubt that I do love them with the love of Christ even if we are hurling into the ravine. 

I do genuinely believe that Shannon ought to come back and begin again with an exegetical approach - allowing for a prophetic direction in keeping with the tenor of Scripture. Certainly in this forum he would be welcome to express his Hebrew roots hope and to know that he could perhaps learn some Hebrew and gain access to some resources that would equip him to a more learned position without the patrimony of servitude predicated on a mistaken civility. 

In a sense when I first read his opening post I did feel that he was genuinely hoping to find some favour. He certainly expressed himself in terms that suggested a genuine eagerness to be believed as he has believed in the Hebrew roots movement. He should have just come right out with it and then set his face like flint. 

[Alive]

6 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

 

Yes they are his! I also found several press reports in Australia. He did post the url - albeit he mistyped it - from the first link and @Alive removed it as self promotion. Which is precisely what I believed when I first saw the link. 

Given the time he has been involved in the Hebrew roots movement I agree that he should have formulated a more rational approach - especially as he preaches like a dead fish. But I listened to the first broadcast of the radio program that aired a few weeks ago and I liked Shannon simply because I believe he is genuine.

His understanding of the various denominational churches approach to the Hebrew roots movement isn't mistaken and I expect that has shaped his reactions somewhat over the years.

If an Irishman came into my meeting and started presenting like a Jew I would more than likely throw him off the roof. The only mercy would be that I would throw myself off with him. After all, Adonai must love one of us, and so that tends to ensure that we hold onto one another as we fall. But then I'm not known for being shy on speaking plainly. And nether does anyone doubt that I do love them with the love of Christ even if we are hurling into the ravine. 

I do genuinely believe that Shannon ought to come back and begin again with an exegetical approach - allowing for a prophetic direction in keeping with the tenor of Scripture. Certainly in this forum he would be welcome to express his Hebrew roots hope and to know that he could perhaps learn some Hebrew and gain access to some resources that would equip him to a more learned position without the patrimony of servitude predicated on a mistaken civility. 

In a sense when I first read his opening post I did feel that he was genuinely hoping to find some favour. He certainly expressed himself in terms that suggested a genuine eagerness to be believed as he has believed in the Hebrew roots movement. He should have just come right out with it and then set his face like flint. 

A fish out of familiar and complimentary water, does not swim as well.

Swimming more slowly at first is advised until acclimated.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

3 hours ago, pinacled said:

Preference is typically an intentional profane changing of The Divine Name.

 

I Prefer Elohim over Satan!

Am I intentionally profaning Elohim by preferring God over the Adversary of God and us?

[appy]

I have NOT lost sight that Jesus is Lord and Savior.  That He came from heaven, born of a woman, born as a Jew, died on the cross, and rose to life again, and then went back up to heaven.  He is fully God and fully man at the same time.

My faith is in Jesus/ Yeshua or whatever your favorite spelling is, and it is through Him alone that I have received God's favor and grace. NOT through legalistic observances of the Old Testament.  

Righteousness was accredited to Abraham, NOT because he used "proper names" or "observed Torah commands"  but because he simply believed God and trusted God.  If any individual is counting on the Old Testament observances to curry God's favor and receive righteousness, then, Jesus is of no use to that individual, for his/her faith is NOT in Jesus/Yeshua but in the law of Moses.

 I want no part of this Hebrew roots movement.  Because it shifts our faith from Christs work on the cross to legalistic observance of Torah and is for the birds, so to speak.

The whole book of Galatians touches on this thread's very topic.

Galatians 3:2-3 (CJB)
I want to know from you just this one thing: did you receive the Spirit by legalistic observance of Torah commands or by trusting in what you heard and being faithful to it?  Are you that stupid? Having begun with the Spirit’s power, do you think you can reach the goal under your own power?

Galatians 3:5 (CJB)
 What about God, who supplies you with the Spirit and works miracles among you — does he do it because of your legalistic observance of Torah commands or because you trust in what you heard and are faithful to it?

Galatians 3:10-12 (CJB)
For everyone who depends on legalistic observance of Torah commands lives under a curse, since it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the Scroll of the Torah.” Now it is evident that no one comes to be declared righteous by God through legalism, since “The person who is righteous will attain life by trusting and being faithful.” Furthermore, legalism is not based on trusting and being faithful, but on [a misuse of] the text

[Your closest friendnt]

19 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

But even so, there is a common knowledge that exists about Christ and His 12 that we don't have to assume because it's not directly found within the Gospels.   We have great understanding Christ and many of His Disciples were from Aramaic Speaking Communities.   His name would definitely begin in a "Y" and the Greek having no "Y" would use a "J" instead.

 

It's rather obvious His Name is Yeshua.  It literally means Yahweh's Salvation.

 

Which I phrase it the Yahweh's Salvation Plan = Yeshua

 

I do not know where you got this from, or if it is something out of your own research. 

And I do not want to put you in a position to defend something you have erroneously believed.  

Or you may have another secondary argument to support your statement above that, 

"His name would definitely begin in a "Y" and the Greek having no "Y" would use a "J" instead."

The Greek alphabet.

And Jesus is in the English language 

Wikipedia's below 

Jesus (name)

 

• Language
• Download PDF
• Watch
• d

 

For the central figure of Christianity, see Jesus.

For other uses, see Jesus (disambiguation).

Jesus (IPA: /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a masculine given name derived from the name IESVS in Classical Latin, Iēsous (Greek: Ἰησοῦς), the Greek form of the Hebrew and Aramaic name Yeshua or Y'shua (Hebrew: ישוע‎).^[1][2] As its roots lie in the name Yeshua/Y'shua, it is etymologically related to another biblical name, Joshua.^[3]

 

^{*** using the first two letters of the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ "JESUS" in uppercase. ... The name Jesus, spelt "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ" in Greek capitals, has the abbreviations IHS (also written JHS, IHC, or ΙΗΣ), the name Christus , spelt "ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ", has XP (and inflectional variants such as IX, XPO, XPS, XPI, XPM).}

*** Joshua (name)

Language

Download PDF

Watch

Edit

Joshua is a given name derived from the Hebrew יהושע‎ (Yehoshua), prominently belonging to Joshua, an early Hebrew leader of the Exodus period who has a major role in several books of the Bible. The name was a common alternative form of the name יֵשׁוּעַ‎ yēšūă which corresponds to the Greek spelling Ἰησοῦς (Iesous), from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.[5][6] As a result of the origin of the name, a majority of people before the 17th century who have this name were Jewish. A variant, truncated form of the name, Josh, gained popularity in the United States in the 1970s.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Your closest friendnt

[Kelly2363]

10 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

A variant, truncated form of the name, Josh, gained popularity in the United States in the 1970s.

 

Thank God that we can blame our American friends. 

That gets the Aussies of then!

[Riverwalker]

37 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

 

Thank God that we can blame our American friends. 

That gets the Aussies of then!

Aren't all Aussies named Bruce?