Use of the name "Jesus" is disrespectful.

[ac28]

I posted this on another forum and got a lot of flak. I am so convinced of what I'm saying, I thought I would give it another shot. Since this is a form of right division and since dispensationalists are the only people on the planet that attempt to obey 2Tim 2:15 and rightly divide, I thought maybe dispensationalists would see the light. I didn't put a tag on this thread because the problem is universal and I believe everyone should at least take a look at this.

As a totally convinced 30 year Acts 28 veteran, I have always been taught, mainly in the writings and audios of Charles Welch and Oscar Baker, my main mentors, that the name "Jesus" was Jesus Christ's name ONLY when he had left His Glory behind and had come down to earth, necessarily as a man, in order to become the ultimate sacrifice. But now, He is no longer a man and the name "Jesus" no longer applies to Him. Instead, He should be addressed in a much more respectful manner.

In order to see whether or not this is true, I scoured the NT to determine the frequencies of the various Titles that might be used.and compare them, numerically, with the frequency oh the name "Jesus." The titles I tabulated were:

Jesus--Jesus Christ--Christ Jesus--Christ--Lord Jesus--Lord Jesus Christ--Lord Christ

I separated the NT into 7 categories. Here are the results. The numbers of the various titles and names are in the same order as I have written them above, in bold. I will do an Excel sheet at some point. The Bible version used was the KJV. I checked out some other popular versions and there were some variations, but, except for the Gospels, these were slight and would affect the results very little. I have no answer as to the large deviations of the Gospels. To avoid Version deviations, I am looking for a English/Greek version that is as easy to search as was the search on BibleGateway. With it, unlike BlueLetter, BibleHub and E-Sword, you could use search variations (e.g., + - " "), like those on Google. Also, on the right of the search page, BibleGateway lists each Bible Book with the number of how many of the search items are contained in each.

-------TITLES> ----J---JC--CJ---C---LJ-LJC--LC
--------Gospels --558--5----0---45---1--0---1
-----------Acts ---28--9----1---10--13--6---1
-----Paul's Acts ----5--29--15--126--13--44--0
Paul's post-Acts ----3--24--29---61---5--18--1
--------Hebrews ---9---3---1----9----1---0---0
-General Epistles ---2--18---2---11----0--10---0
------Revelation ---4---5---0----2----1---1---0

Paul's Books(13) ----8--53--44--187--18--62--1
-All Epistles(20) ---10--71--46--198--18--72--1

Totals of Paul's 13 epistles - "Jesus" vs All Others = 8 vs 365 = 97.8% Others
Totals of All 20 epistles - "Jesus" vs All Others = 10 vs 406 = 97.6% Others
Totals of all except Gospels - 51 vs 469 = 90.2% Others

In the Gospels, the nearly total use of "Jesus" was expected, since He was a mortal man, at that time, and that was His common name, the name by which people addressed Him.

Acts and Hebrews surprised me. In neither, did I expect that many occurrences of "Jesus." In Acts, maybe it was due to much of the discussions being about His earthly ministry.

The ones I was really interested in were the epistles of Paul, James, and the 12. To me, these are the keys to what we should do. Paul is our only apostle. He tells us to follow him in 1Cor 4:16, 11:1, and he repeats that up in his after-Acts books, in Phil 3:17. I take Paul's directions seriously. He only used "Jesus" 8 times on his 13 epistles = 2.2% of the times he addressed our Lord. Follow Paul.

The General Epistles, written by the ministers to Israel, James, Peter, John, and Jude, did almost as well - Only 4.7% usage of the much less respectable "Jesus".

I skimmed over the numbers of probably 30-40 other versions, on BibleGateway. Most were very similar, but 1 stood out - the J.B. Phillips New Testmant. It only had one instance of Paul using the the name of the mortal man, "Jesus". Then I saw that Mr. Phillips must not of believed the pagan concept of "hell", because he only used it 4 times, each for something unrelated, and there were none in the Gospels. I immediately found and ordered a new Phillips NT paperback on Amazon for $15. Who knows, it might be lousy otherwise, but anyone that has the guts to not tell lies about the faux hell in their Bible, deserves a chance to be read. I was disappointed that he left the comma in the wrong place in Lk 23:39, and he mangled 2Tim 2:15, by putting "how to use the word of truth to the best advantage", instead of some word involving cutting or dividing or dissecting, as Strong's says it means. You can't have everything.

Yesterday, I showed the "Jesus" numbers to my son and he said that, awhile back, he had quit a Baptist church because the preacher constantly used Christ's man-name "Jesus." He couldn't take it anymore. I didn't blame him one bit. Christ Jesus is surely not a man now and he hasn't been one for about 1988 years. Gotta show some respect. Do you call the Queen of England "Liz"? When Christ rules on Earth with a rod of iron during the Millennium, I pity anyone that addresses Him as "Jesus."

Until today, I never thought of this being a right division issue. For a 3-1/2 year period, when Christ was a mortal man, His name was "Jesus". Since about 30AD, His name has not been "Jesus" for 2 millenniums and our God, Savior and Creator deserves to be addressed by one of those 6 titles. We must rightly divide between His time of being a mortal man and NOW. Any of the actual titles Paul used is OK.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I would think the correct terminolgy would be in reference to the title He holds in context to what is being spoken of. Jesus, the Master or teacher is perfectly ok if one is referring to His earthly mission, while the Lord, Christ, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus would be more appropriate for His risen stature.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But now, He is no longer a man

Jesus is still human.
Jesus is the name of the Eternal Person of the Son, who became flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and remains the risen and glorified God-Man seated at the right hand of the Father in glory. He will be the risen and glorified God-Man at His coming again to judge the living and the dead, and He will be the glorified God-Man for all eternity.

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus is still human.

He is not human anymore. He died and was resurrected in a glorified body which means he isn't human anymore. A human is in a mortal, Earthly body. He is now in a Celestial body.

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

... Any of the actual titles Paul used is OK.

Your seriously laying it at Paul's (your only apostles) feet? Whatever, but the true picture is found in the 7 names of God in the NT. I can supply them if you wish.

 

[ewq1938]

As a totally convinced 30 year Acts 28 veteran, I have always been taught, mainly in the writings and audios of Charles Welch and Oscar Baker, my main mentors, that the name "Jesus" was Jesus Christ's name ONLY when he had left His Glory behind and had come down to earth, necessarily as a man, in order to become the ultimate sacrifice. But now, He is no longer a man and the name "Jesus" no longer applies to Him. Instead, He should be addressed in a much more respectful manner.

There is nothing wrong in using the name "Jesus". It's used 12 times in Rev, once by Jesus himself!

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

[ewq1938]

Rev_3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Jesus does have a new name but we don't know what it is yet so until then Jesus is very much the correct name.

 

[pat34lee]

Every name and title that the churches use for him
today is a translation or a transliteration or worse.

Jesus is a transliteration of a transliteration, from
Hebrew to Greek to Latin. His name is Yeshua or
Yahshua or Yahushua, the same as the man who
led Israel when Moses died (Joshua). Note there
is only one 's' in the name.

He came as a Jew, and his titles are all Hebrew.
He is Messiah, not Christ.
Alef and Tav, not alpha and omega.
Son of Yahweh, not god.

 

[dysert]

There is nothing wrong in using the name "Jesus". It's used 12 times in Rev, once by Jesus himself!

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

I'm curious to hear how the OP responds to this.

 

[ac28]

There is nothing wrong in using the name "Jesus". It's used 12 times in Rev, once by Jesus himself!

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

We're not in the times of Revelation, Revelation is 100% future. We're in a time when Israel does not exist in God's eyes and it's all Gentile. Revelation doesn't apply to any of today's saved Gentiles. You'll either be dead and still in the grave, waiting for the White Throne Judgement, or, if you have the eyes to see the calling in Paul's post-Acts epistles, you'll be in Heaven.

In any case, no matter how you rationalize it, the use of the word "Jesus" to address our Lord, is extremely disrespectful. Follow Paul. He's the last word in what you should do. Why did Paul not use the too familiar "Jesus" 98% of the time.

In the KJV, the word "Jesus" actually appears in Revelation 14 times in 12 verses. In six of those times, it is "Jesus" alone. In the other 8 times, it is either Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.

 

[dysert]

We're not in the times of Revelation, Revelation is 100% future. We're in a time when Israel does not exist in God's eyes and it's all Gentile. Revelation doesn't apply to any of today's saved Gentiles. You'll either be dead and still in the grave, waiting for the White Throne Judgement, or, if you have the eyes to see the calling in Paul's post-Acts epistles, you'll be in Heaven.

In any case, no matter how you rationalize it, the use of the word "Jesus" to address our Lord, is extremely disrespectful. Follow Paul. He's the last word in what you should do. Why did Paul not use the too familiar "Jesus" 98% of the time.

In the KJV, the word "Jesus" actually appears 14 times in 12 verses. In six of those times, it is "Jesus" alone. In the other 8 times, it is Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.

No, Rev. 2-3 is the church age, not future. (And the church age is now.)

 

[ac28]

I'm curious to hear how the OP responds to this.

1Co 2:14-> But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2Co 4:18b-> For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Actually, you must tell me why those verses you quoted have anything to do with this. By quoting those particular scriptures, it seems that you are not receiving the things of the Spirit of God. What I see Paul doing is setting a precedence, a pattern. What I see of those bucking up against this is they are arrogant and feel this is foolishness to them. I ask this question: Knowing that Christ was constantly referred to as Jesus during His human lifetime, why would Paul address Him as Jesus only 8 times out of the 373 times Paul spoke about Him?

I would think it is foolishness to God when He sees all these arrogant earthlings thinking it's OK to disrespect our Lord Christ Jesus. I think only once Paul said he was speaking as a man. Otherwise, every word Paul uttered or wrote was God-breathed. Paul is our only pattern today. What he did, we should do. And what Paul did was stop using the disrespectful term "Jesus", with 8 exceptions out of 373 occasions. I would bet there are good reasons for those 8 and it will be my next project to find them.

 

[ac28]

I would think the correct terminolgy would be in reference to the title He holds in context to what is being spoken of. Jesus, the Master or teacher is perfectly ok if one is referring to His earthly mission, while the Lord, Christ, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus would be more appropriate for His risen stature.

My sentiments exactly! Finally, a sane voice in the wilderness!

Thank you!

 

[JackRT]

"Jesus" is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic name "Yeshua" which was not an unusual name at the time. "Christ" is not a name at all --- it is a title meaning "Annointed One" which is the same meaning as "Messiah". The appropriateness of Jesus as a given name depends very much on the cultural traditions. In Anglo-Saxon nations it is virtually unknown while in Hispanic nations it is sometimes used but not commonplace.

 

[dysert]

Actually, you must tell me why those verses you quoted have anything to do with this.

Those verses are in my signature. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[ac28]

No, Rev. 2-3 is the church age, not future. (And the church age is now.)

There is no church age. this is one of those 100s of things invented by denominational preachers, so they could sell more tickets. Since no denominational preacher rightly divides God's Word, they only have an understanding of about half of what the New Testament is all about. Once you get saved, escape from these churches or you'll never know any real truth.

So, you're talking about the 7 Asian Jewish churches, or were they synagogues? These are the ones --- That were - That aren't now - That will be. This has nothing to do with the present church, which is certainly not the same church found in Acts or the Gospels or anytime from Gen 12 thru the end of Acts. The unique, brand-new church today is found only in Paul's last 7 books - Eph, Phil, Col, 1&2Tim, Titus, and Philemon - all written after Acts. It is the only group in the Bible that have ever had a hope of heaven. Search and See! If you don't have the eyes to see your calling in those books and can't see it as being separate from all other callings and churches, including the one during Acts, you don't get heaven. Everyone who has ever died, except Christ, is still in the grave and no one yet, except Christ, has ever gone to Heaven. Without seeing, believing, and claiming the truth found only in Paul's post-Acts epistles, your resurrection will be the last resurrection, the White Throne Judgement, which will occur about 1700 years from now. The rapture is not for anyone living during the present 2000 year Gentile period, which will probably be over in about 50 years. 50 years from now is about when the first resurrection will take place, composed of only those saints who can SEE the hope and calling of Heaven in Eph, Col, etc.

Do you rightly divide the word of God - 2Tim 2:15 ? If not, you are NOT approved unto God, 2Tim 2:15.

Who is your apostle? Extremely important question. Christ was an apostle, a sent one. Is it Him?

 

[Radagast]

Christ Jesus is surely not a man now and he hasn't been one for about 1988 years.

Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is a core Christian belief.

 

[ac28]

Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is a core Christian belief.

You could have said that 1988 years ago but, now, there is no man part. That man died on the cross. He can do anything He wants to. He is now all God. If He were still man, His Glory would burn Him up.

I often publish a list I made of 40 core Christian beliefs that are dead wrong. In fact,as least half of what you learn in the very best denominational churches is dead wrong. You're really naive to make a statement like you did.

 

[ac28]

Those verses are in my signature. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sorry. I thought those were very strange verses to quote on this topic.

 

[Radagast]

You could have said that 1988 years ago but, now, there is no man part. That man died on the cross.

If you are denying the Resurrection, then you are not a Christian.

Jesus rose with his body, he ate with the disciples, he still had the scars of his wounds.