xjwsforChrist

They are Chinese Mandarin, Cantonese, etc are dialects.

They are not really pictographs as there are words that are a combination of characters.

But close enough

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

For goodness' sake, Shel, I just asked for clarification!!

Why so defensive?! I wasn't "taking issue"!

I only asked! Wow!

Why don't I "go and ask?" How do you know I haven't? Because I came up with a different answer than you? That brings us back to a question I asked a few days back, which provoked a storm of protestation!

Please, Shelby, and everyone else, when someone asks a perfectly ordinary question from a desire to understand...and the explanation of your individual and collective standpoints is no clearer despite all the defensive pseudo-agressive outbursts, no matter how cleverly couched and scattered with Bible references,...please don't assume all such well-meaning queries to be hostile!

For the most part, from most people here, they're not!

Justmom, you wrote



That is very nice, and very gentle. But please don't assume that not using the term "my Lord" means discomfort at owning the personal link. Far from it. Reflecting on this whole question, I do feel strongly that the rest of the world use "our Lord" because they don't see themselves as exclusively in this relationship. He came to save us all. Absolutely, I, and most Christians, and by use of that word I am including Christians of all churches, traditions and denominations, we, all of us, use "our" because we KNOW he came down to save mankind. Not a chosen few. Not those he manages to find, which is what someone else posted somewhere here. mankind. The world.

In fact, Saint Paul,somewhere in his letter to the Romans, makes it clear that this is NOT even confined just to those who have heard of Jesus Christ. I don't remember just where right now...JW's certainly have the edge where Bible references are concerned, and I have thrown away all my JW literature...but it's not hard to find.

I do see that this is a big shift from JW thinking and I totally understand that you were born and brought up in that closed thought-system. I think those who, like you, managed to first identify that it was wrong and a lie, and secondly to come out of it are very very brave indeed. So I know you can think for yourself.

He is my Lord and your Lord and Our Lord, here for us all. I believe that accepting a teaching that he is here just to save a few who will then go to heaven and sit on thrones is a mistake, not a deliberate human deception on the part of a human, but it's just plain not true.

Good morning, Char.

I am going to respond to some things that I did not respond to yesterday, because I truly did not want to argue, and Justmom posted such a lovely response, from love, that I didn't want to 'wreck' that. You state that your questions are innocent. Okay then... let me be as honest as I can in my response to you then.




There is no such thing as "Shelby's Christology". Just as there should be no such thing as Pauline theology, or Calvinism, etc. The people here have responded why they use the term, and it is not because Shelby teaches it to be so. You of course can choose to believe that, or you can just outright reject that.




No one is doing the above, and the way that you have worded the above is insulting to each person who has taken the time to explain to you the reason for their faith. Christ. Christ told them his name. Christ helped them to see. Christ called them OUT of HER. Christ speaks to them, and so they profess that Christ speaks.

People are not doing as Shelby says. People, including Shelby, are following the same One: Christ.

As to the name Jaheshua... I personally did not use this name until I heard it for myself, from Him. Even then I hesitated due to the reason I asked (to get someone off my back). But like you, I would not use that name unless I was told.

Recently, my Lord helped even me to see the progression from Yeshua... how Yeshua (a common translation of Christ's name today) came from Jaheshua.

Yeshua
Y' eshua
Yaheshua


But I would not have (and did not) used it without hearing it from Him, and Char, no one is telling you or anyone else that you should on the mere word of another person. The emphasis NOT to do anything on the word of another person here has been, well.. emphatic ; )



Yes... but not because your answer is different than what another person says they heard... but because you 'came up with it'.

Unless that is a figure of speech difference, coming up with something tends to be something that one gets from themselves... rather than something one receives and hears from Christ.



Char, no one HAS assumed this. No one has taken issue with anyone saying our lord. You took issue with someone saying 'my lord', linking that to someone thinking they are an exclusive group. The answers you have been given have shown otherwise, yes?



No one here thinks this either, Char. So I am not sure where you are drawing this parallel from. It is not from anyone here. No one here is thinking anything even close to the JW teaching on this matter. It just is also not even close to the RCC teaching.

You asked a matter on the use of 'my lord', and have been given answers. I don't think that was the root of your issue with the people here though, or the matter should have rested after those answers, that did not mean what you thought they might mean.

Peace,
tammy

What puzzles me most of all about all this is the sheer defensiveness that has emerged. My questions were seeking information and enlightenment. In fact, as it turns out, I am receiving both as to what people's reasoning is, but it's certainly not the kind of explanation i was hoping for or expecting.

I absolutely agree with you, Tammy. Justmom's response was indeed lovely, and I said as much.



"There is no such thing as "Shelby's Christology"." Actually, there is. Shelby has a unique and distinct understanding of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you share it, perhaps you don't, though you have made it clear that you share some of it, not necessarily because she has it, but just of yourself. The free dictionary on the web defines Christology here

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christology

and Shelby's interpretation and understanding, backed up by the regular, indeed, constant, as she said the other day, conversations she has with her Lord and the things she tells us she is shown make it very clear that her understanding is sufficiently distinctive and unusual to be described thus. There is nothing critical in the use of such a term. it is merely fact.

"it is not because Shelby teaches it to be so. You of course can choose to believe that, or you can just outright reject that. " I am not sure why you say any of that. Never have I said that you believe something because Shelby teaches it to be so, annd so I have never rejected it, so, no thanks, I decline your offer that I may reject something I have no inclination to reject. Tammy, you sound here as though you are in an argument wiith hostile inquisitors on JWN. This is not JWN, and I am not a hostile inquisitor.





Please would you explain where I insulted anyone? None was intended.



"Doing as" someone says is not cause and effect. It's not obeying an instruction, unless in context it's like a child being told by a parent "Do as you're told." it can merely be descriptive and accurate, which is what it is here. No insult. No dark agenda.



Purely a figure of speech. No deep meaning intended.



"Taking issue" seems to be on your mind. It's really not a phrase in common usage in this country, though I've met others who use it a lot. It seems to be general forum-speak. If by "taking issue" you mean "finding fault with" or "criticising", then no, I was not criticising and found no fault. I am not the only, or the first one, who finds some modes of speech used by Shelby and some others here, though naturally not because Shelby uses them, and rarely encountered elsewhere, and so it was a natural question to ask. Again, the defensiveness of the reaction is remarkable, and somewhat mystifying.



Yes, noting the consistent employment of the personal possessive pronoun I was musing on its distinctive and unusual use by just a few people here...not, I think, most....and submitted a genuine request for clarification. The resulting...and if I may say so rather paranoid and definitely very defensive response of some reactions... not all, thank you again, justmom! ...is even more puzzling, and merely serves to deepen the oddness.



I think you must be referring to what I wrote about sittiing on thrones? Actually, you're wrong there, Tammy. It would be a month or so ago, but during the course of a thread on the old forum Shelby insisted that this was exactly what Christ's chosen ones, or something like that, I forget her exact words, WOULD be doing, and when I demurred there was a Biblical reference to demonstrate to me that I was wrong. I let it go then, but I haven't forgotten. It'll be there in the records if that thread has come across, but I didn't bookmark it and am not sure when exactly it was. I'd say within the last couple of months, but I'm guessing. I was very surprised, and that's why it made an impression on me.



" No one has taken issue with anyone saying our lord." I didn't say anyone had. I merely asked why, from some people, "my" was used where others would more usually use "our". Simple question. Why all the fuss?



Strange. Again, I have no "issue with the people here", so how a non-existent abstract could have a root must remain a mystery.... "the matter should have rested"...should? Should? Ought to? Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.

What a strange, incomprehensible, defensive exchange. I am none the wiser, and utterly bemused as to why a perfectly simple question should have provoked such an extraordinary sequence of outbursts. Normally, when a person or group respond like that, it means the querent has touched a nerve. What could possibly be the reason here.

Once more, though, Justmom, thank you for your very plain straightforward answer. Much appreciated. Paul too, and I answered you earlier, Paul.

Shaking head...

Ahh, dear Char (peace to you, my dear!)... we obviously see (many) matters quite differently... which is "absolutley" okay. In this particular instance you see others as being defensive and taking issue when folks use the name "Jesus" or say "our Lord"... when the truth is that we don't. On the other hand, what I (and apparently others) see is that some, including you, take issue that we DON'T use that name, but the name "Jah eShua"... and on occasion call him "my Lord." You did ask about that and several of us responded. From there, though, rather than say, "Well, okay, I get/don't get it, but okay, if that's what YOU dear ones choose"... you took it a place of pretty much accusing folks of following me and my "christology", as well as obeying what "I" say. Somehow, though, you can't see how that is insulting... to them AND to me... and that is concerning to me. I mean, I don't ask anymore of YOU than I do of them... and I've asked YOU... for nothing. Not to listen to me, follow me, or even believe me. I have, repeatedly, though, shared with you WHO you might listen to, follow, and believe. That you are unable/unwilling to do that is on you, luv, not me.

Even so, again, you confuse me... because all that I am seeing NOW obviously comes from another "side" of you that you never presented to ME... and so I had no reason to suspect or concern myself with. So, you must surely understand why I am responding to you as I am. Sadly, I think it's borne of something more than merely the responses here. I won't go into what I DO think it is... because you'll only deny it. I just didn't think that you, who profess to be concerned with and adamant about TRUTH... would have this issue, truly. It... what I believe is behind this... just isn't worthy of you. And I am NOT talking about your disagreement in beliefs/understandings - we've always had those. I am talking about how you are making comments as to OTHERS in relation to me... rather than treating them as YOU would wish to be treated: faithful in and of their OWN right, even if others don't agree.

Which is why I found your... applauding dear Sab (peace!) the other day... quite curious. You had NOT problem hailing someone who took up for you when YOUR faith was questioned. Yet, you have "questioned" the faith of several here and one person in particular on a regular basis. When I ask you why, what was "behind" your doing so, you feigned innocence. It really kind of blew me away that both of you had a "Who do you think YOU are, Shelby, for calling into question MY/Char' faith!?"... yet NEITHER of you made one peep as to your calling dear Loz's faith in to question. Certainly, if dear Sab had a problem with ME for making a comment as to someone else's faith... such that he thought he was right in his "anger" so as to "correct" ME... he should have given YOU the same rebuke. In truth, you should have acknowledged YOUR error... rather than blowing it off as if some of us are seeing incorrectly.

Hence, my comments as the hypocrisy.

Even so, dear 'Mom (peace, luv!) and I are two different people who communicate different ways. And it seems to me that you are more receptive to her way of sharing... which is TOTALLY fine. Indeed, I am of the mind... and heart... that the BEST course from here on... so as to try an keep the peace between you and I... and on the board in general... is for ME to refrain from responding to your inquiries as to matters of the spirit, Christ, the Bible, etc., and leave such issues for HER to respond to you. Because she is quite capable of doing that, I absolutely know (I've known her quite personally for more than 15 years), and so I am SURE she can speak for herself and why she believes as she does and states what she does... and, as you've shown... in a way YOU can receive. I am confident of that because although she said virtually the SAME thing to you about the RCC as some others, until today you've never ever responded to her comments. I do believe the only reason you have today is because I brought that truth up... and so for you NOT to would be even more revealing than what has transpired thus far.

So, please do not be confused when I don't respond to your questions along these lines. I truly do NOT want you to continue using me to falsely accuse... or insult... others... OR me... and that IS what you're doing, dear one, although I realize that that may not be your INTENT... and that you don't see it that way. It is what you're doing and hopefully, at some point, you will condescend to go back and read your comments so as to "see" what we mean.

If not, no worries; when you ready, you will see it.

So, okay... I've shared all I wish to on this particular matter, and so won't respond to your response (which I have no doubt is coming)... unless you post something else false. Unless and until then... I'm off to cruise the rest of the "boulevard."

Peace to you, truly... and to ALL!

YSSFS of Christ,

SA, who just isn't into playing word... or "feelings"... or other "games," sorry. Not my schtick.

I really don't want to rehash the many discussion was have had over the name Jaheshua.
Jaheshua is a correct Hebrew/Aramaic name and is only, typically, written as Yeheshua because of the english tendency to pronounce the "J" in Jaheshua as an actual "J" sound as opposed to the "Y" sound that it is. It is easier to think "Yeheshua" when reading the Y as opposed to the J, even though we all ready Hallelujah with the "y" sound.
I totally understand how using the correct and ethnic name of Christ can make one feel closer.
Most Messianic Jews use Yeshua and even spell God as G_D.
I think it is far better to focus on what we share in common rather than what are the differences.

I have never heard of Jaheshua before or until I got to know this group. Is that Jesus's name?
How is it pronounced phonetically? I must say it's easier to say My Lord lol

Yah-shoe-ah

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

Amen and amen, dear P (peace to you, luv!)... and I have always tried to do that here ('cept where it comes to the WTBTS, because THEY don't allow for it. You MUST agree with them, on ALL that they believe, or...).

I will return to looking toward what I share in common with others (primarily, love of God... and Christ)... rather that what is different. Because I have learned that where there is love differences don't matter. He that is not against you... is FOR you... in that while he may not agree with you, is not against you. Unfortunately, some are able to only LOVE those "like" them. We, though, are not to be that way Matthew 5:43-48 and so I will continue to try.

May I leave you, dear tec, and perhaps others to expound on OUR dear Lord's name? My apologies to dear Zoe (peace to you all!), but I must leave shortly to run errands. There may be some information already set out on another site, too, but I have no desire to go there and look for it. I have no doubt, though, that you dear ones can handle it... without me (wink!) - LOLOLOL!

Peace to you, all!

YSSFS of Christ,

SA

Couldn't agree more, Paul!



Zoe, it may well be Jesus' Hebraic name. Pronounced...I don't know...maybe phonetically as it looks. I don't mind anyone using it. I do mind being reproached for not using it.,..but I don't mind very much! I have no "issue" with it!



Well, Shelby, what a tirade! What can I say?! :0

I ask a simple question. I am told, over and over, that I am "taking issue". If that means criticising, no, I wasn't. Nor arguing, nor disagreeing, no, I wasn't. I just truly wanted to know and understand.

So, I point that out. I answer Tec, making it clear that I am NOT at odds with anyone, I am NOT "taking issue" to use your terminology. No issue. NOT taking issue.

So, what do you do? You write at length rebuking me for "taking issue"! !!!!!

Shelby, it's as good as a comedy act, except, you know, it's actually very sad. I really did want to know. I genuinely asked. I wasn't criticising or arguing, and certainly not taking issue, as you call it. There IS no issue. There never was! But even after I have taken the trouble to go fully into accounting for my query and reiterating that I am not taking issue, you lament and shake your head and say how you never expected it of me.

Your bit about Sab. Well, you say I've done this and that, which I don't recognise and I suspect that there will be others who don't either. I don't think I applauded him. I've read back, and see no applause. I think you say all that because I thanked Sab, because, yes, he stood up for me, and I appreciated and still appreciate that. Thanks were due. I was touched and grateful that he stood up for me. Natural courtesy, as I think many will agree.

But



What comments?! I have not said anything about you to anyone in PM or otherwise?! I don't even know what you're talking about!

And

Where did I ever call "dear Loz's faith in to question"? Please? I don't judge anyone's faith. Her faith is of no interest to me. (I think I already said something similar.)

So, all in all, yes, I do find this weird insistence that I am taking issue with you distinctly peculiar. I have no argument with you. Yes, I do find it very odd that you talk about Loz's faith...???????...and me not replying to justmom...we have corresponded in many PM's, she and I, and I certainly haven't ignored her, nor deliberately anyone, on the forum. So, where does that come from????

You imply that suddenly I've become untruthful. Why? Where? When? How? I am not the one saying something is so when it isn't! (I have not "taken issue"!)- But I am not accusing you of lying.

It all seems very, very peculiar, Shel.

I hope you got some fresh air on the boulevard, and can get things into a better perspective.

?????????? That certainly has never occurred here, dear Char (peace to you!), at least not to knowledge. If so, can you please post a link to the thread and quote the comment? I will personally call for an apology on your behalf, absolutely. If someone elsewhere has reproached you so, they shouldn't have and you should feel free pointing out them where they did and request an apology/ask them to recant/stop.

I have to wonder, though: is it truly from other HUMANS that you are feeling such "reproach"? Or is it perhaps something... even someONE... else... that is invoking such in you? Given how you "hear"... perhaps your spirit "feels" this way, yes... but for a reason... and from a "source"... that has absolutely NOTHING to do with any HUMANS who use that name?

Something to consider, maybe?

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

SA, who will have to pass on commenting on the previous post. Just no true benefit, dear one, to either of us... or the board in general...

It is the Hebrew phonetic writing of Joshua and uses the same "syllabic" pronunciation.
Jaheshua is pronounced ( more or less):
Yeahshooah
So, as you would day Joshua but with the "yeah" instead of the "Josh".
Sounds better if you do it with an old jewish rabbi accent by the way.


Most English spellings use the Yeh beginning because of how the J is pronounced in English.

Yes. As to whether Joshua, or its equivalent, was really his name, well, I don't know. It was Jehovah's Witnesses who first told me that, about four years ago, so, I'm sorry, but I take it with a pinch of salt.

And Zoe, you can decide for yourself if the rest of the world is wrong, or displeasing to him, by calling him by the name by which he has been known. Does that sound like Jesus Christ, the Son of God, of the same substance and being as the Father with Whom He is united in love with the Holy Spirit, who speaks in the New Testament? Not to me, it doesn't. Nor, clearly, to the billions and billions of good Christians who worship and follow him, all over the world.

Hello dear Zoe to you today

Dear Paul explained our Lords name and pronunciation very clearly, thank you my brother.

It is pronounced JAH- ( sounding Yah) - E ( short e) SHUA

And it is part of His Fathers name that we use all the time by saying " Hallelu JAH! Or praise Jah!

Psalms chapters 146-150 repeatedly uses this name and praise.

Psalms 68:4 tells us " Sing you to God, make melody to His name; raise up to the One riding through the desert plains As JAH, which is His name , and jubilate before Him."

This is my I personally use it as to what I have heard. Whether or not others choose to is a personal decision and I'm perfectly okay if they choose not to.

Love to you all Justmom