Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

Michael The Disciple · #1 04-12-2016, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where did the apostles speak about using a supposed Hebrew pronunciation of his name?

First off this started out as a discussion about baptism and calling on the name. Now it has evolved into this topic. When I came on the forum ten thousand posts back I tried to explain my own view of why I thought it was a good thing to use the Hebrew name and I used it occasionally here.

Over time I have used it less because I see it angers people. Now and then a discussion still comes up along this line so I will be drawn into it.

But as to your question where did the Apostles speak about a HEBREW PRONUNCIATION OF THE NAME. No they never mentioned it because they did not need to. THEY WERE HEBREWS. They never knew Jesus by any other name than the HEBREW NAME.

Now I realize that people come to truth various ways. One night as a young Spirit filled Pentecostal believer we were out preaching on the streets. A couple of Oneness guys were there also preaching.

One of them preached at us...Acts 2:38...were the Apostles wrong? I thought great point! Then he gave Acts 4:12...there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED!

To me thats what clinched the deal. The NAME was verry important. The name was JESUS in the context of baptism or calling on the name. So thats what pointed me to what I must do. As the years went by I heard Apostolics quoting Acts 4:12....THERE IS NO OTHER NAME.

Well when I began to hear about the Hebrew name I thought if there is NO OTHER NAME than the one Pete quoted in Acts 4:12 then it is THAT NAME that was commanded to be called on.

For me it was EXACTLY THE SAME CONCEPT. Apostolics would use that verse for baptism in Jesus name to the extent of telling people they are going to Hell unless it is spoken over them at baptism! And yet THEY THEMSELVES upon hearing what the actual name Peter was talking about is would utterly reject the thought of even using it period....much less to be baptized in it!

So Esaias my friend Peter did not say it has to be Hebrew pronunciation. He just said there was NO OTHER NAME....than the one he was using!

Now since day one on this forum I have NEVER said that one would be lost if they dont use the Hebrew name. I have tried to show why the concept is important.

Nonetheless I am still amazed after all these years at how Oneness Pentecostals cannot connect the importance of this message with Acts 4:12. If one goes to Hell because they are not baptized in the name "Jesus" WHICH NO APOSTLE ever heard of how much more important would it be to know the actual name he was talking about?

Esaias · #2 04-12-2016, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

First off this started out as a discussion about baptism and calling on the name. Now it has evolved into this topic. When I came on the forum ten thousand posts back I tried to explain my own view of why I thought it was a good thing to use the Hebrew name and I used it occasionally here.

Over time I have used it less because I see it angers people. Now and then a discussion still comes up along this line so I will be drawn into it.

But as to your question where did the Apostles speak about a HEBREW PRONUNCIATION OF THE NAME. No they never mentioned it because they did not need to. THEY WERE HEBREWS. They never knew Jesus by any other name than the HEBREW NAME.

Now I realize that people come to truth various ways. One night as a young Spirit filled Pentecostal believer we were out preaching on the streets. A couple of Oneness guys were there also preaching.

One of them preached at us...Acts 2:38...were the Apostles wrong? I thought great point! Then he gave Acts 4:12...there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED!

To me thats what clinched the deal. The NAME was verry important. The name was JESUS in the context of baptism or calling on the name. So thats what pointed me to what I must do. As the years went by I heard Apostolics quoting Acts 4:12....THERE IS NO OTHER NAME.

Well when I began to hear about the Hebrew name I thought if there is NO OTHER NAME than the one Pete quoted in Acts 4:12 then it is THAT NAME that was commanded to be called on.

For me it was EXACTLY THE SAME CONCEPT. Apostolics would use that verse for baptism in Jesus name to the extent of telling people they are going to Hell unless it is spoken over them at baptism! And yet THEY THEMSELVES upon hearing what the actual name Peter was talking about is would utterly reject the thought of even using it period....much less to be baptized in it!

So Esaias my friend Peter did not say it has to be Hebrew pronunciation. He just said there was NO OTHER NAME....than the one he was using!

Now since day one on this forum I have NEVER said that one would be lost if they dont use the Hebrew name. I have tried to show why the concept is important.

Nonetheless I am still amazed after all these years at how Oneness Pentecostals cannot connect the importance of this message with Acts 4:12. If one goes to Hell because they are not baptized in the name "Jesus" WHICH NO APOSTLE ever heard of how much more important would it be to know the actual name he was talking about?

The apostles wrote in Greek. The Gentiles spoke in Greek. Why were they not told anything about pronunciation of the Name?

Why did God not include any mention of His desire that we use a Hebrew sounding pronunciation of the Name?

The Bible was written and preserved IN GREEK by Divine Providence. The NAME that has been made known around the world is IESOUS, pronounced a variety of ways depending on the person's language.

I just don't understand why non Hebrew speaking people are attracted to trying to speak Hebrew here and there when it comes to religion. It's pretentious. Its embarrassing to watch a guy with a clearly American accent suddenly drop into Rabbi mode when mentioning certain things. Like when they are speaking English to English speakers and try to sound all Jewish when mentioning Bible people's names. Shaul instead of Saul or Paul, Mattiyahu instead of Matthew, etc...

I mean, really now. A Hebrew who speaks Hebrew? Fine. But to suggest there is some sort of "move of God" involved in (mostly white American) Christians suddenly using Hebrew pronunciations - when there is no instruction to do so by the apostles - seems like quite a stretch.

Ever hear if the term "plastic Paddy"? Same concept.

I just don't understand why people want to go outside what is actually written. That seems definitely non apostolic and non Biblical.

If you want to use Yeshua or whatever, fine. But its no different than if I, as an American English speaker, preferred to use Jesucristo and said "God is giving new understanding of this and people who don't use Jesucristo are hanging in that back number of people who think they know it all but really haven't moved on with God."

It just really comes across as divisive, pretentious, and lacks scriptural support, so why bother with it?

Evang.Benincasa · #3 04-12-2016, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

The apostles wrote in Greek. The Gentiles spoke in Greek. Why were they not told anything about pronunciation of the Name?

Why did God not include any mention of His desire that we use a Hebrew sounding pronunciation of the Name?

The Bible was written and preserved IN GREEK by Divine Providence. The NAME that has been made known around the world is IESOUS, pronounced a variety of ways depending on the person's language.

I just don't understand why non Hebrew speaking people are attracted to trying to speak Hebrew here and there when it comes to religion. It's pretentious. Its embarrassing to watch a guy with a clearly American accent suddenly drop into Rabbi mode when mentioning certain things. Like when they are speaking English to English speakers and try to sound all Jewish when mentioning Bible people's names. Shaul instead of Saul or Paul, Mattiyahu instead of Matthew, etc...

I mean, really now. A Hebrew who speaks Hebrew? Fine. But to suggest there is some sort of "move of God" involved in (mostly white American) Christians suddenly using Hebrew pronunciations - when there is no instruction to do so by the apostles - seems like quite a stretch.

Ever hear if the term "plastic Paddy"? Same concept.

I just don't understand why people want to go outside what is actually written. That seems definitely non apostolic and non Biblical.

If you want to use Yeshua or whatever, fine. But its no different than if I, as an American English speaker, preferred to use Jesucristo and said "God is giving new understanding of this and people who don't use Jesucristo are hanging in that back number of people who think they know it all but really haven't moved on with God."

It just really comes across as divisive, pretentious, and lacks scriptural support, so why bother with it?

shazeep · #4 04-13-2016, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

The apostles wrote in Greek. The Gentiles spoke in Greek. Why were they not told anything about pronunciation of the Name?

Why did God not include any mention of His desire that we use a Hebrew sounding pronunciation of the Name?

The Bible was written and preserved IN GREEK by Divine Providence. The NAME that has been made known around the world is IESOUS, pronounced a variety of ways depending on the person's language.

I just don't understand why non Hebrew speaking people are attracted to trying to speak Hebrew here and there when it comes to religion. It's pretentious. Its embarrassing to watch a guy with a clearly American accent suddenly drop into Rabbi mode when mentioning certain things. Like when they are speaking English to English speakers and try to sound all Jewish when mentioning Bible people's names. Shaul instead of Saul or Paul, Mattiyahu instead of Matthew, etc...

I mean, really now. A Hebrew who speaks Hebrew? Fine. But to suggest there is some sort of "move of God" involved in (mostly white American) Christians suddenly using Hebrew pronunciations - when there is no instruction to do so by the apostles - seems like quite a stretch.

Ever hear if the term "plastic Paddy"? Same concept.

I just don't understand why people want to go outside what is actually written. That seems definitely non apostolic and non Biblical.

If you want to use Yeshua or whatever, fine. But its no different than if I, as an American English speaker, preferred to use Jesucristo and said "God is giving new understanding of this and people who don't use Jesucristo are hanging in that back number of people who think they know it all but really haven't moved on with God."

It just really comes across as divisive, pretentious, and lacks scriptural support, so why bother with it?

nice

Steve Epley · #5 04-13-2016, 07:43 AM

Folks baptized in Russia speak the name spoken in Russian same in Spanish speaking nationalities, Arabic or Hindu it matters not. Acts 2:38 obeyed in the language of the hearer is the same!
I have not met the first so-called sacred name guy who speaks or reads Hebrew.
I am not impressed.
A study of the sacred name movement in America sprang out of the JWs the majority deny Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost baptism with the exception of those who have departed from the Oneness movement NONE of which I have met have a clue about speaking the original language. Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.