The Authority Of His Name

[Ken Rank]

It's about Jesus. That is who holds holds the authority. If we as Christians represent Him we have to use His name. The Apostles would say, " In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk."Should we do less? No wonder the world is so sin sick. There is power in the name of Jesus.There is authority in the name. Demons tremble and fall at the name of Jesus. That is why He says ask in my name.

The authority is not in a word or letters.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The authority is not in a word or letters.

Really? So why did He say ask IN MY NAME? Try to keep it simple. He did not say ask in my reputation, or my character even though that is important.

 

[Ken Rank]

Really? So why did He say ask IN MY NAME? Try to keep it simple. He did not say ask in my reputation, or my character even though that is important.

Ask in my will... don't treat me like a genie... ask within the structure of my authority, in a manner consistent with my character. That is what it means.

Otherwise, God doesn't hear us UNLESS we use that ONE word, that ONE pronunciation? Isn't that bordering on a magic word... paganism?

 

[Vicomte13]

In scripture,New Testament, the name is Jesus. Now if you believe that scripture has the name wrong, how much more scripture do you believe is wrong? Scripture does not use the Hebrew. I think the Holy Spirit would have used Yeshua, or Yehoshoah, or whatever if that was to be the name believers were to use.

The New Testament is written in Greek, not English. Jesus' name in the ACTUAL New Testament is "Iesous" or "Iesoun", depending on the part of speech it has when it is used.

 

[Vicomte13]

Ask in my will... don't treat me like a genie... ask within the structure of my authority, in a manner consistent with my character. That is what it means.

Otherwise, God doesn't hear us UNLESS we use that ONE word, that ONE pronunciation? Isn't that bordering on a magic word... paganism?

It might. In any case, the word would be "Iesoun" or "Iesous" - not "Jesus"...if the ACTUAL WORD really mattered.

The name of Iesoun in English is Jesus, but the New Testament is not written in English, so if the actual, specific name and its pronunciation mattered, there is no "J" in Jesus, just as there is no "J" in Jehovah. There's no "J" in Hebrew or Greek at all, so if the actual name matters, it cannot have a J in it.

 

[Vicomte13]

Ask in my will... don't treat me like a genie... ask within the structure of my authority, in a manner consistent with my character. That is what it means.

Otherwise, God doesn't hear us UNLESS we use that ONE word, that ONE pronunciation? Isn't that bordering on a magic word... paganism?

Of course I don't think that pronouncing the actual name matters a fig, but if I DID think that, then it would not do to be speaking English, for English did not exist for a thousand years after the death of Iesoun.

(I'm making a point, and doing it rather obnoxiously, because I find the argument of excessive Biblical literalism to be untenable as a matter of reason, and doubly untenable if the literalism is not then done only in the original language of the writings, which are Greek and Hebrew respectively. It will not do, for example, to translate Iesous' name into English OR into Hebrew, because the name was never given to Christians in Hebrew. It was given in Greek, only Greek, and that name is two names: Iesous or Iesoun, depending on part of speech. If we're going to be obnoxiously literalist and strictly Scripture, then Christian Scripture was given exclusively in Greek, and the only proper way to address God is in Greek. I don't believe that, but I DO insist on when discussing it with people who ARE literalists. If one is a strict literalist, he MUST learn koine Greek, because a translation is only ever an echo.)(And then there is a debate as to whether the Old Testament is properly read in Hebrew or Koine Greek, as the text used by the early Christians, Iesous included, was the Greek version.)

It might appear that I am dragging the thread off point, but really I am right on point. If we're going to be literalist absolutists, then Christianity is revealed exclusively in koine Greek, and nobody who does not read koine Greek has ever read the Scriptures at all, regardless of what they say.

I know you don't believe that. I believe it when speaking to literalists. I don't when speaking rationally of myself.

The problem with absolute literalism is that it ends up in insanity.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

It might. In any case, the word would be "Iesoun" or "Iesous" - not "Jesus"...if the ACTUAL WORD really mattered.

The name of Iesoun in English is Jesus, but the New Testament is not written in English, so if the actual, specific name and its pronunciation mattered, there is no "J" in Jesus, just as there is no "J" in Jehovah. There's no "J" in Hebrew or Greek at all, so if the actual name matters, it cannot have a J in it.

I guess it boils down to whether you believe the English translation of the New Testament is approved by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit put our cannon together through Holy men. I think too that the English translation of the scripture is authoritative, therefore we can trust the words written therein. If any part of the scripture is not true, how do we trust any of it to be true?

 

[Vicomte13]

There is power in the name of Jesus.There is authority in the name. Demons tremble and fall at the name of Jesus. That is why He says ask in my name.

His name is revealed "IESOUN" or "IESOUS", pronounced "YAY-ZOON" or "YAY-ZEUS".
His name isn't Jesus.

Somebody named "John" is not named "Yohannan", and somebody named "Estevao" is not named "Stephen". Those are different translations of a name. "Jesus" is an English and French, translation of the Greek "Iesous". His name, in English, should also be "Jesoon".

So if the actual NAME has power, then the NAMES that are given in Scripture that actually have the power are Iesous and Iesoun. Jesus does not appear in Scripture. It appears in translations of Scripture into other languages and is not the same word at all.

 

[Vicomte13]

I guess it boils down to whether you believe the English translation of the New Testament is approved by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit put our cannon together through Holy men. I think too that the English translation of the scripture is authoritative, therefore we can trust the words written therein. If any part of the scripture is not true, how do we trust any of it to be true?

There is no basis in Scripture to believe that the English translation of Scripture is inspired by God. And IF one really, truly believes that the name of Jesus, as given by God, has real power over demons, why take the chance? YAYZOON and YAYZEUS are not hard to say in English, and they are what is in Scripture.

So why complicate things by adding English in and asserting that translations into a language that did not exist for 1000 years after Jesus' death is "the same thing" as speaking the actual name spoken by the angel and given in the actual Scripture?

Why cling to this name, "Jesus" that nobody - not Greek, not Latin, not Jew - used?

To the Hebrew and Aramaic-speaking Jews, he was Yeshua, or Yehoshua.
To the Greek speakers and the New Testament, he was Yayzeus or Yayzoon.
To the Latin-speakers, he was Yayzoo.

He wasn't "Jeezus" until after 1200 AD.

Why be stubborn or political? It's not hard for an English-speaker to speak the revealed names Iesoun and Iesous. And those we KNOW have power, according to Scripture. To just absolutely INSIST upon English is to depart from the subject and become political about English-speaking culture and language, that it's "Just as good" as the language of Scripture.

Maybe, maybe not, but Iesoun and Iesous are the words of Scripture, so why not just say those, and amend the English bibles to use the ACTUAL given name of Jesus?

The Hebraicists insist on the Hebrew name, but that's not the name revealed in the New Testaments. Neither is Jesus. The Greek is, so why politicize things and move away from the name ACTUALLY REVEALED?

(Related: Does the pronunciation of YHWH matter?)

 

[Ken Rank]

Of course I don't think that pronouncing the actual name matters a fig, but if I DID think that, then it would not do to be speaking English, for English did not exist for a thousand years after the death of Iesoun.

(I'm making a point, and doing it rather obnoxiously, because I find the argument of excessive Biblical literalism to be untenable as a matter of reason, and doubly untenable if the literalism is not then done only in the original language of the writings, which are Greek and Hebrew respectively. It will not do, for example, to translate Iesous' name into English OR into Hebrew, because the name was never given to Christians in Hebrew. It was given in Greek, only Greek, and that name is two names: Iesous or Iesoun, depending on part of speech. If we're going to be obnoxiously literalist and strictly Scripture, then Christian Scripture was given exclusively in Greek, and the only proper way to address God is in Greek. I don't believe that, but I DO insist on when discussing it with people who ARE literalists. If one is a strict literalist, he MUST learn koine Greek, because a translation is only ever an echo.)(And then there is a debate as to whether the Old Testament is properly read in Hebrew or Koine Greek, as the text used by the early Christians, Iesous included, was the Greek version.)

It might appear that I am dragging the thread off point, but really I am right on point. If we're going to be literalist absolutists, then Christianity is revealed exclusively in koine Greek, and nobody who does not read koine Greek has ever read the Scriptures at all, regardless of what they say.

I know you don't believe that. I believe it when speaking to literalists. I don't when speaking rationally of myself.

The problem with absolute literalism is that it ends up in insanity.

I don't know if you are taking a position against what I am saying because I basically hold the same view. I have said, repeatedly in this thread, that the use of Jesus is fine, it doesn't matter. The only time I would say anything is when somebody speaks as if Paul wrote in the King's English and that Mary whispered the name "Jesus" for him to hear. Then, we are dealing with something simply not true and, while I will defend anyone who holds to something that isn't true (as if anyone is correct 100% of the time!) for those reading in a forum like this... a polite correction is called for. He didn't hear "Jesus" from anyone. But... "Jesus" follows a line of transliteration that started in Hebrew in 300BC when the guy we know as "Joshua" had his name transliterated into Greek in the LXX. And from there, eventually, to Latin, then English and we end up with Jesus. It's all good, I don't care!

None of that was my point. My point is that we should define words as they were understood by those who wrote them OR how they were understood at the time they were translated. For example, if the KJV uses the word "prevent" (Ps. 59:10a - The God of my mercy shall prevent me) does the KJ only crowd define that as God keeping us from doing something? Or, do we research a little and discover that "prevent" a few hundred years ago, meant "to go before?" As in, "The God of my mercy shall go before me."

The word "name" today deals with what we call somebody and so we darn well make sure we say "Jesus" to finish a prayer or God can't hear us. Or we make sure we say "Jesus" when we are immersed or I guess it doesn't take? When the word name is REALLY dealing with the name bearers character, reputation and authority.

 

[Servant232]

Zeph 3:8 - Is the only verse in the Hebrew Scriptures (TaNaCh) wherein all 22 Hebrew letters and the 5 sofits are found in a single verse.

Zephaniah 3:8 לכן חכו לי נאם יהוה ליום קומי לעד כי משפטי לאסף גוים לקבצי ממלכות לשפך עליהם זעמי כל חרון אפי כי באש קנאתי תאכל כל הארץ

Now consider the following verse.

Verse 22830 | Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon The Name of YAHUWAH, to serve Him with one consent.

 

[Ken Rank]

Zeph 3:8 - Is the only verse in the Hebrew Scriptures (TaNaCh) wherein all 22 Hebrew letters and the 5 sofits are found in a single verse.

Zephaniah 3:8 לכן חכו לי נאם יהוה ליום קומי לעד כי משפטי לאסף גוים לקבצי ממלכות לשפך עליהם זעמי כל חרון אפי כי באש קנאתי תאכל כל הארץ

Now consider the following verse.

Verse 22830 | Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon The Name of YAHUWAH, to serve Him with one consent.

Is your point that this means we will all call on whatever pronunciation is popular this week? Or do you understand that even in Zeph. 3:9, the idea of "calling on the name" in HEBREW means calling on His authority and power?

By the way, for the record... while I tend to believe that Hebrew is that pure language, I also see it as a strong possibility that we have not yet even heard that language and to assume it means Hebrew, when it does NOT say Hebrew, it not good exegesis.

 

[Emli]

I have rebuked and cast out evil spirits, using the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth (in both Swedish and English) and Yeshua and Greek Ἰησοῦς. I had to focus on what that meant each and every time, and it worked each and every time, knowing that the Lord, the Holy Spirit and His angels were with me. But we should definitely use the name Jesus Christ if we are doing this when non-believers or those with weak faith are watching, because it is the name that He has chosen to make Himself known to the world. And whatever version of His name makes us most comfortable and helps us lean on His power should be used.

An evil spirit was once oppressing me, a long time ago when I didn't know how to stand in His authority yet. I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!" to it to make it go away. It answered "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus... Do you think he will save you?" I freaked out a little at first, but then I just said "Yeah!" and I stood firm in my faith. The spirit fled. It's faith that saves us, and without faith God isn't gonna move, and the enemy won't care. Because when we stand firm in faith, the evil spirits and even Satan cannot stand to be in our presence, because they see Jesus in us, and they fear Him, and then the name of the Lord gives us all authority. They have to obey, but we have to believe, and we have to keep our focus on the Lord Himself, and not waver in faith.

Let's not quarrel over which translation of His name we use, but let's instead strengthen each other to claim the victory that Jesus has given us.

 

[Servant232]

Is your point that this means we will all call on whatever pronunciation is popular this week? Or do you understand that even in Zeph. 3:9, the idea of "calling on the name" in HEBREW means calling on His authority and power?

By the way, for the record... while I tend to believe that Hebrew is that pure language, I also see it as a strong possibility that we have not yet even heard that language and to assume it means Hebrew, when it does NOT say Hebrew, it not good exegesis.

Doublespeak

 

[Ken Rank]

Doublespeak

How so? God has a name and we should call Him by that name. But to proclaim His name (His SHEM) is to speak of His character, His reputation, His authority, His power. That is what it means in Hebrew. So when we see, "proclaim His name" our modern, Western, Greek influenced minds think "what we call Him" when the first century Jew who knew him would have understood it to mean speaking of His attributes, that which defines Him.

 

[Ken Rank]

Doublespeak

In the Explanatory Notes of the 1998 version of “The Scriptures” (by ISR) we read this under this topic Name:

“The Hebrew word is shĕm, which means much more than “name” in English. It is not a mere label of identification; it is an expression of the essential nature of the bearer of that name. In Hebrew, in the Scriptures, it speaks foremost of His authority. The Name of יהוה reveals Him, His character, the remembrance of Him, and His authority.”

To repeat, name in English is a label of identification, but shem in Hebrew is an expression of the nature of the name bearer. Shem reveals the person, his character, even his authority. This concept is supported by the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon (AHL), which defines words according the meaning of each Hebrew letter, it says this of shem:

“The wind, or breath, of someone or something is its character. Hebrew names are words given to describe character. The breath of a man is character, what makes one what he is. The name of an individual is more than an identifier but descriptive of his character or breath.”

 

[Ken Rank]

Exodus 34:5 And YHWH descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the YHWH. (6) And YHWH passed by before him, and proclaimed, YHWH, YHWH Elohim, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, (7) Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Notice, the weight not on whatever pronunciation of "YHWH" is used this week, but on His character attributes.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

So why complicate things by adding English in and asserting that translations into a language that did not exist for 1000 years after Jesus' death is "the same thing" as speaking the actual name spoken by the angel and given in the actual Scripture?

What??? What scripture do YOU read? How were YOU saved?

 

[Servant232]

How so? God has a name and we should call Him by that name. But to proclaim His name (His SHEM) is to speak of His character, His reputation, His authority, His power. That is what it means in Hebrew. So when we see, "proclaim His name" our modern, Western, Greek influenced minds think "what we call Him" when the first century Jew who knew him would have understood it to mean speaking of His attributes, that which defines Him.

Hebrew block logic vs. Greek linear thinking

Zec 9:13

When I have bent Judah for Me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.


You added nothing to what I already know...

 

[Ken Rank]

Hebrew block logic vs. Greek linear thinking

Zec 9:13

When I have bent Judah for Me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.


You added nothing to what I already know...

Well, obviously because you already know everything.