The Authority Of His Name

[31gH9N.9.]

In these last days, more and more Christians are beginning to recognize the power and authority of the name of the Lord. As we move closer to the end, I see confusion among brothers and sisters about the name.Some call Him by one name, and some call Him another name. I want to discuss this because I think Satan may be at work deceiving people into using another name for our Lord than the one we were given. So, here is what the Bible calls Him

Matt. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Philippians 2: 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


So do we trust the name that the Bible gives us as THE NAME? Or, do we foolishly follow another name that scripture does not give us?

I think his name had different spellings and was pronounced differently in different languages at that time. There are grammatical reasons for spelling his name how it is in Greek as a transliteration from Hebrew. How should a Hebrew speaking person spell His name in Hebrew? I don't think they have a J sound like we do. Chinese pronounces it Yesu. This is just the conclusion I've come to.

I know this passage doesn't tell us everything, but it's something to consider.

"And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. AND the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." John 19: 18,19

Also,

"And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own toungue, wherein we were born?... we do hear them speak in our tounges the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:7,8,11.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

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.

That is just plain silly...you are saying the Scriptures were originally written in English and they were NOT...they were written originally in Greek. Iesous is the Greek

 

[Vicomte13]

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.

I'm basically agreeing with you. (Except on the bit about Jesus' name being the same as Joshua's - that's an assumption, really. Here, I am being as ardently pedantic as possible, to take the point you made even PAST the point that you made it.) The ultimate point? The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

 

[Servant232]

Well, obviously because you already know everything.

On the contrary, you were answered according to the presumptions that you had made concerning my understanding, By attempting to show me the error of my ways and giving me correction... First, You assumed to know what I know and believe, then you answered as if you were the one correcting me from the error of my ways ... It Seems to me that you are the know it all, walking in straw man arguments.

 

[Ken Rank]

I'm basically agreeing with you. (Except on the bit about Jesus' name being the same as Joshua's - that's an assumption, really. Here, I am being as ardently pedantic as possible, to take the point you made even PAST the point that you made it.) The ultimate point? The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

Agreed on all but as an aside. The oldest NT manuscripts we have are Aramaic, and within them his name appears as Yeshua (in Aramaic, of course). Strong's says that Jesus originates from Yehoshua and gives his reasons. Most scholars are OK with this. But the most telling point might simply be the Greek. There, his name is rendered, as you know, Iesous. Since "Joshua's" name is rendered exactly the same way in the Septuagint, which was translated in 300BC, then it's pretty much a given that the one who led Israel into the Promised Land and the one who has done the work that leads us into the Promised Land.... have the same name.

Part of the hyper-literal error is they can't accept this because if "Jesus" is the name above every name and "Joshua" and Jesus are really the same name when you run it back into Hebrew/Aramaic... then this just can't be. But... if we understand that "name" in Hebrew deals more with character, reputation and authority.... then it doesn't matter if they were both called "Bob." Yeshua (Jesus, Messiah) still has the name above all because we are not dealing with his appellation we are dealing with His authority and power. Hence... "ALL power in heaven and earth has been given unto me." All power... the name (power, authority) above all.

 

[Ken Rank]

On the contrary, you were answered according to the presumptions that you had made concerning my understanding, By attempting to show me the error of my ways and giving me correction... First, You assumed to know what I know and believe, then you answered as if you were the one correcting me from the error of my ways ... It Seems to me that you are the know it all, walking in straw man arguments.

And yet champ... on 99% of everything, we probably agree. We could rally around what we have in common knowing we all will get corrected by God in due course anyway?

 

[NeedyFollower]

Agreed on all but as an aside. The oldest NT manuscripts we have are Aramaic, and within them his name appears as Yeshua (in Aramaic, of course). Strong's says that Jesus originates from Yehoshua and gives his reasons. Most scholars are OK with this. But the most telling point might simply be the Greek. There, his name is rendered, as you know, Iesous. Since "Joshua's" name is rendered exactly the same way in the Septuagint, which was translated in 300BC, then it's pretty much a given that the one who led Israel into the Promised Land and the one who has done the work that leads us into the Promised Land.... have the same name.

Part of the hyper-literal error is they can't accept this because if "Jesus" is the name above every name and "Joshua" and Jesus are really the same name when you run it back into Hebrew/Aramaic... then this just can't be. But... if we understand that "name" in Hebrew deals more with character, reputation and authority.... then it doesn't matter if they were both called "Bob." Yeshua (Jesus, Messiah) still has the name above all because we are not dealing with his appellation we are dealing with His authority and power. Hence... "ALL power in heaven and earth has been given unto me." All power... the name (power, authority) above all.

Brother ..I am so thankful that this is being brought out for many reasons. I am having this same " battle " as it were with some from the KJV only camp. This is just another form of legalism and has become a "fetish" ...ironically another Jesus. His name is His person ..His idenity..His description..His authority ....Peter could not possibly have said literally " In the name of Jesus , etc. for the letter "J" did not exist in Aramaic or Hebrew. My how knowledge puffs up and our faith is in " words " and not God. ( It typically manifest itself through groups who "have it right and everyone else is wrong "....a form of spiritual pride . ) Grace and Peace in His name .

 

[Steve Petersen]

Bibliolatry.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

In these last days, more and more Christians are beginning to recognize the power and authority of the name of the Lord. As we move closer to the end, I see confusion among brothers and sisters about the name.Some call Him by one name, and some call Him another name. I want to discuss this because I think Satan may be at work deceiving people into using another name for our Lord than the one we were given. So, here is what the Bible calls Him

Matt. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Philippians 2: 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


So do we trust the name that the Bible gives us as THE NAME? Or, do we foolishly follow another name that scripture does not give us?

I almost always end my private prayers with "in the name of Jesus" because I believe in the authority and power of Jesus name. The key to opening the power of Jesus name is faith, it is a powerful expression of acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the heart, mind, and from the mouths of believers.

 

[31gH9N.9.]

. The oldest NT manuscripts we have are Aramaic, and within them his name appears as Yeshua (in Aramaic, of course)

Can you please share where you got this information from? I have never heard of an ancient Hebrew or Aramaic NT manuscript being found. The most I've heard is from some of the early christian writers who say that Matthew first compiled his gospel in Hebrew, something I don't have a problem believeing even though their testimony is our only evidence.

 

[31gH9N.9.]

The oldest NT manuscripts we have are Aramaic, and within them his name appears as Yeshua (in Aramaic, of course)

I just found out that Syriac is a branch of Aramaic, my bad. That makes for an old NT but as far as I can find not the oldest.

 

[DamianWarS]

In these last days, more and more Christians are beginning to recognize the power and authority of the name of the Lord. As we move closer to the end, I see confusion among brothers and sisters about the name.Some call Him by one name, and some call Him another name. I want to discuss this because I think Satan may be at work deceiving people into using another name for our Lord than the one we were given. So, here is what the Bible calls Him

Matt. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Philippians 2: 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


So do we trust the name that the Bible gives us as THE NAME? Or, do we foolishly follow another name that scripture does not give us?

The sounds that form the name is rather insignificant and should have no bearing on the actual authority of Christ. If not then we turn Jesus into magic or some sort of incantation which is counter Gospel. What God is looking for is the heart not the syntax.

Biblically speaking the name of Christ is Greek but the actual name uttered was probably Aramaic, but then Aramaic was more an adopted language so we should go back to Hebrew. However rather then going back if we move ahead Latin became the language of the western church and now English has taken over which by the way the 1611 KJV uses both different spelling and pronouciation of Jesus (Iesus) so it's gets a little confusing what actual word we should settle on and this doesn't take into count the millions of languages and cultures that use something else.

 

[Ken Rank]

Can you please share where you got this information from? I have never heard of an ancient Hebrew or Aramaic NT manuscript being found. The most I've heard is from some of the early christian writers who say that Matthew first compiled his gospel in Hebrew, something I don't have a problem believeing even though their testimony is our only evidence.

I can find it... there was one complete Aramaic NT from the 3rd century... and most of the Greek comes from many hundreds of years later. Now... I don't have an Aramaic primacy or anything like that, I have no issue with the Greek.

 

[Ken Rank]

Dupe... not sure why.

 

[Ken Rank]

I just found out that Syriac is a branch of Aramaic, my bad. That makes for an old NT but as far as I can find not the oldest.

I will look... Syriac is ancient Aramaic and there was one copy that dated back to the 200's. There are a lot of websites out there that are against an Aramaic primacy so they make digging through Google for info a little harder. Blessings.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Oldest complete New Testament to go on display at British Museum

 

[Ken Rank]

Oldest complete New Testament to go on display at British Museum

I have seen many claims that that is the oldest complete work. I might be wrong, I am fairly certain that a complete or near complete NT exists from 100 years earlier. I will look for it when I get home.

 

[parousia70]

The bible wasn't written in 21st century California, it was written in 1st century Judea. Therefore, words and phrases need to be defined as they were used in the day they were written.

I have found that this line of reasoning, this method of interpretation you are espousing, does not go over too well on CF.

In my experience, CF Eschatology posters tend to prefer 21st century California definitions to 2000 year old scriptural words and phrases.

 

[Ken Rank]

I have found that this line of reasoning, this method of interpretation you are espousing, does not go over too well on CF.

In my experience, CF Eschatology posters tend to prefer 21st century California definitions to 2000 year old scriptural words and phrases.

You really had me there for a second. Not that that really good humor isn't based in truth because it is!

 

[31gH9N.9.]

Oldest complete New Testament to go on display at British Museum

That'd be cool to see!