The Name - Page 3

Margies3 · #1 03-24-2007, 12:08 PM

Interesting that this thread popped up today. I was thinking about starting one very similiar.

Last night we watched "The Nativity Story" (don't bother, it's not that great).
but one thing that struck me last night that never has before was when the angel went to John's father and told him, "His name is to be JOHN". Why? Why was that name so important? God must have had a reason, but I just don't understand what it would be.

And then God chose the name for His son as well. I guess that one makes a little more sense to me. We are adoptive parents and both of our boys came to us already "named". We were given the option of changing those names, but decided not to. But naming a child is certainly the privilege of the parents - dont you agree? So I suppose that, in a sense, by God choosing the name for His own son, He was sealing the fact that He claimed paternity. But maybe there is more to it than that? Any thoughts??

freeatlast · #2 03-24-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This purist name position has no biblical merit ... Yeshua ... Jesus ... Jesucristo ... all refer to HIM

Absolutly agree with ya Dan.

This is a Thread about "The Name" I was simply making a point about, which unfortunaly Elder E, didn't read to the bottom of the page beofre his Hat blew off his head.

I said i am not seriuos.

I do not think that God does not hear when he hears us pronounce "his name" in our English.

I DO NOT think his name is "
magic name"

I do believe we should do all we do in the authority of that name.

Michael The Disciple · #3 03-25-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This purist name position has no biblical merit ... Yeshua ... Jesus ... Jesucristo ... all refer to HIM

This being true why should forum members be offended if one would use the name Yeshua? Especially when the one using it has not written anything contrary to someone else using Jesus?

Joelel · #4 03-24-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

A great topic! I was drawn into the "Apostolic Faith" because of the authority carried by Acts 4:12. I was baptized into it and rejoiced. Then later when I learned about the original Hebrew name I rejoiced over that.

I thought Apostolics who championed the teaching of the name would be glad to hear more truth about it. Boy was I wrong! So far I have never been in a thread on this subject where it was a discussion. Rather most participating rush to criticize even discussing it.

At no time have I EVER reproached the English version of the name. It is the most beautiful name in our language. Yet we know it is not the same name the Apostles called him. It is not the same name that Peter spoke in Acts 4:12.

Yes its true that some out there ARE teaching that the name Jesus will not save. That is not MY POSITION. However if we know the original and we have the same sounds in our OWN language why not use it?

It seems to me the Apostolics fear that Acts 4:12 has come back to challenge THEM! Instead of rejoicing that more truth is being revealed they are now offened that someone might say to them as they have said to many others "there is no other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved".

So those who have championed the doctrine of the name resent the actual name that is was given to the early Church. Of course I think I am starting to see some openess among them but the norm is still to criticize the name above all names that should be held in the highest possible honor.

Hi Michael,When I learned about the trancelation differance I called on the name Yehowshuwa and jumped in the water. The correct trancelation of Yehowshuwa to english is Johoshua,it's pronoced the same.Then on the other hand I have cast out devils in Jesus and they came out and have prayed for the sick in Jesus and they were healed. So I think the bottom line is God knows we are referring to his Son,In his Son is salvation and power or authority but I believe the Son's name must be spoken because how would anyone or God know who's authority we are using ? It's like calling on the authority,how do you call on authority,then if you do call authority how does anyone know who's authority? I think the bottom line is satan is trying to get us to stop using Jesus, the same as he did when he changed the baptism from Jesus to Father,Son And Holy Ghost.See Jesus is not being spoken.So I see satan in the work of deceving.

freeatlast · #5 03-24-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joelel

Hi Michael,When I learned about the trancelation differance I called on the name Yehowshuwa and jumped in the water. The correct trancelation of Yehowshuwa to english is Johoshua,it's pronoced the same.Then on the other hand I have cast out devils in Jesus and they came out and have prayed for the sick in Jesus and they were healed. So I think the bottom line is God knows we are referring to his Son,In his Son is salvation and power or authority but I believe the Son's name must be spoken because how would anyone or God know who's authority we are using ? It's like calling on the authority,how do you call on authority,then if you do call authority how does anyone know who's authority? I think the bottom line is satan is trying to get us to stop using Jesus, the same as he did when he changed the baptism from Jesus to Father,Son And Holy Ghost.See Jesus is not being spoken.So I see satan in the work of deceving.

But God can not figure out, does not know who is refered to when He hears Father Son and Holy Ghost?

Again, I'll say that I do not think that God is going to disqualify a persons baptism on a technicallity.

Wehther the name of Jesus / Lord / Lord Jesus Christ /Christ/ Yeshua /Yoshua
or.....here I go...Father Son and Holy Ghost is spoken in baptism I really think God looks on the heart of the one baptized, not the one doing the baptizing.

Shoot me now. please

whollyHis · #6 03-24-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Some would think this would cause some trouble for those who say if "the Name" is not called over the one in the water that NO sins are remitted.

They'll disqualify F.S. and H.G. on a technicallity...but give no thought to the fact the the "magic name" was really never spoken over them in baptism.

OK..I'm not serious here....and i don't think God is that "serious" either, that He would disqualify your baptism on a technicallity.

I am troubled in my heart as I read this...what does this phrasing mean, exactly???

The name of Jesus is the most precious thing in my life. There is no other name, under heaven, whereby we might be saved. No other name so sweet; there is no one, no one, like Jesus.

Can't explain how I am feeling right now...my heart is sincerely troubled. Am I reading too much into your statement here?????

freeatlast · #7 03-24-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whollyHis

I am troubled in my heart as I read this...what does this phrasing mean, exactly???

The name of Jesus is the most precious thing in my life. There is no other name, under heaven, whereby we might be saved. No other name so sweet; there is no one, no one, like Jesus.

Can't explain how I am feeling right now...my heart is sincerely troubled. Am I reading too much into your statement here?????

Read tha last line WhollyHis: here I'll bold it for you.

OK..I'm not serious here....and i don't think God is that "serious" either, that He would disqualify your baptism on a technicallity.

stmatthew · #8 03-24-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Read tha last line WhollyHis: here I'll bold it for you.

OK..I'm not serious here....and i don't think God is that "serious" either, that He would disqualify your baptism on a technicallity.

So we have a complete old testament that shows that God was very particular in what it took for the Children of Israel to be saved in their dispensation, but now us in this new dispensation can just "come as we are". No particulars need be obeyed. God left everything flapping in the wind.

ThePastorsCoach · #9 03-24-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Read tha last line WhollyHis: here I'll bold it for you.

OK..I'm not serious here....and i don't think God is that "serious" either, that He would disqualify your baptism on a technicallity.

Oh LAWDY - TROUBLE BREWING UP AHEAD! Trouble in my way!

Falla39 · #10 03-24-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Some would think this would cause some trouble for those who say if "the Name" is not called over the one in the water that NO sins are remitted.

They'll disqualify F.S. and H.G. on a technicallity...but give no thought to the fact the the "magic name" was really never spoken over them in baptis

OK..I'm not serious here....and i don't think God is that "serious" either, that He would disqualify your baptism on a technicallity.

Wonder if it was just a technicality when Jesus called for

Lazarus, to come forth. What would have happened if He had

not called a name!! Would all the dead have come forth! He

called one name!!! One man came forth! He identified one man!

Identity!

For GOD (HIS FATHER) hath HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and GIVEN HIM

a (THE) NAME, that at the NAME of JESUS, every knee should bow of

things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; AND

that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to the

glory of GOD, THE FATHER!!

Sounds like more than a technicality to me!

Blessings,

Falla39