The name of Jesus is his own name that God gave to call upon so as to be saved, therefore Jesus is the Lord Jehovah

Acts 2 v 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Three Thousand Believe

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The name of Jesus is his own name that God gave to call upon so as to be saved, therefore Jesus is the Lord Jehovah

  1. Anonymous says:

    Act 2:21 is a typical out-of-context interpretation that the Trinitarians oftentimes practice without looking to the actual context of the Tanach, namely Joel 2:31-32.
    Joel 2
    31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

    Since when has the sun turned to darkness? or the moon to blood? or Jerusalem to be liberated? or the remnants freed?

    The Jews and the Unitarians don’t worship the name. If the name of “Iesous” were important, the Bible wouldn’t not have mentioned “Bar Jesus” as example of false Prophet in Acts 13:6. Moreover, If the title “Kurios” were so important, the Bible wouldn’t have praised the title “Kurion” for Abraham in 1 Pet 3:6.

    Similar to the name Iesous and Kurios, there are some namesake Jehovahs throughout history:
    (i) Angels: one whose name is used by Abraham when vowing to sacrifice his son Isaac, one of three guests who talks with Abraham at Mamre and Lot when they participates in raining down Sodom Gomorra with fire, one who assumes the forms of the pillar of fire, the pillar of cloud even a desert rock in Sinai, one who withdraws the promise of giving the Canaan land to Jews during the time of Joshua.

    (ii) Religious artifacts, such as the sacred things Abraham, Moses, Manoah made by their own hands (Jehovah yireh, Jehovah nissi, Jehovah-shalom, etc).

    (iii) Jerusalem city overall, as Jehovah-dzikenu.

    (iv) Jewish king, as Jehovah-dzikenu.

    (v) Horses’ bells, as qodesh-Jehovah.

  2. A Series of Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses Pt. 4, by Sam Shamoun
    This raises some serious problems for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If Jesus wasn’t Jehovah God how could Christ and his Apostles claim that salvation and forgiveness of sins come from turning to and believing in the name of the Lord Jesus? How could Peter proclaim that there is no other name besides that of the risen Christ by which men are to be saved? And how could the early Christians go around calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus both for salvation and in their worship if in fact Christ was God’s first creature?
    Christ and his disciples would have been fully aware of the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures testify that Jehovah forgives and saves for his own name’s sake to anyone who calls upon his name, not the name of another. How, then, could Jesus and his followers ascribe such authority and glory to the name of Christ if he were not Jehovah God in the flesh (even though he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit)?
    Isn’t the answer obvious?

  3. θ says:

    “martha_layton says: How could Peter proclaim that there is no other name besides that of the risen Christ by which men are to be saved? ”

    Peter just says specifically “by which *we* are saved”, not generally for all.
    After all, there’s a pattern in the Bible both the OT Bible and the NT Bible that God saved specific people thru certain “elects” and “righteous ones” other than Jesus.

    Gen 18:32
    And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.

    2Ki 19:34
    For I will defend this city, to save it, for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

    Isa 62:1
    For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

    Isa 63:17
    O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

    Mt 24:22
    And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

    Mk 8:35
    For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.

  4. θ says:

    God saved people for the sake of place and the book:
    Mk 8:35
    For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.
    Isa 62:1
    For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

  5. Sam Shamoun debunks Muslim scholar’s tirade against the name of Jesus.

    http://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ataie/jesus_name.html
    The New Testament itself attests to this meaning of the name since this is what Matthew wrote concerning the announcement of the angel of the Lord to Joseph concerning Mary conceiving a child by the power of the Holy Spirit:

    “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (‘Iesous): FOR he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Matthew 1:20-23

    Here we see that the reason why virgin born child will be called Jesus is because HE HIMSELF will personally save his own people from their sins. There is nothing about him being saved by God here, since he is the one who is clearly going to be doing the saving!

    The Apocrypha, specifically the book of Sirach, provides further attestation to this meaning of the name:

    “Joshua (‘Iesous) the son of Nun was mighty in war, and was the successor of Moses in prophesying. He became, in accordance with his name, a great savior of God’s elect, to take vengeance on the enemies that rose against them, so that he might give Israel its inheritance.” Sirach 46:1 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

    The reason why OT Joshua was given that name is because he became Israel’s great Savior by destroying their enemies and bringing them safely into the promised land.

    What this clearly shows is that Jesus’ Hebrew name does not mean “he is saved”, but rather “Yahweh saves”, since he is the God who has come to deliver men from their transgressions. This point is brought out even further elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel:

    “even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:28 – cf. Mark 10:45

    “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:26-28 – cf. Mark 14:22-24

    Jesus forfeits his life as a vicarious sacrifice in order to ransom all those who believe from the penalty of their sins.

  6. السلفية says:

    “martha_layton says: Sam Shamoun debunks Muslim scholar’s tirade against the name of Jesus.
    http://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ataie/jesus_name.html
    The New Testament itself attests to this meaning of the name since this is what Matthew wrote concerning the announcement of the angel of the Lord to Joseph concerning Mary conceiving a child by the power of the Holy Spirit:
    “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (‘Iesous): FOR he shall save his people from their sins.”

    Certainly three Synoptic Gospels show a scene how the Jews and Pharisees have their time of avenging back an “irony” of the Hebrew name “Jesus” (he saves others), but that name doesn’t imply otherwise that he may be able to save himself.
    It is a reminiscence of famous proverb of “failed Physician” which, once again, a sarcastic irony Jesus uttered to describe the sins of Pharisees.

    Lk 4:23
    And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

    Point is taken: Jesus can’t save himself from the sins which the Jews have accused him of committing, such as a blasphemy of being the “forgiver of sin” like God.
    Mt 9
    2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

    A mockery of a failed Physician.
    Mt 27:42
    He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
    Mk 15:31
    Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
    Lk 23:35
    And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided [him], saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

  7. θ says:

    Good rebuttal. If I could add a little bit, it is notable from Jesus’ own words that even those Trinitarians who employ Jesus’ name could also probably “save” the far worst sinners (atheists, heathens) by their talents, but that same name can’t save them if they don’t do the good works and disobey God’s laws. Ironic isn’t it?
    Another fact for the proverb of a failed Physician.

    Mt 7
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy *name*? and in thy *name* have cast out devils? and in thy *name* done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

  8. Anonymous says:

    The death of Jesus on the cross is not different from other condemnation on the sinful angels, the sinful Jews, and the sinful ancient people.
    Rom 8:32
    He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
    Rom 11:21
    For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
    2Pet 2:4
    For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
    2Pet 2:5
    And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

  9. You all forget to refute Sam’s remarks on Jesus being saved through resurrection.
    Finally, even if we take Jesus’ name to imply that he would end up being saved by God the Father this still wouldn’t establish Ataie’s desperate polemics. Ataie erroneously assumes that the only way that God could have saved Jesus is by preventing him from being crucified. He conveniently forgets or overlooks the fact that there is another way in which God could have saved Jesus, namely, by raising him from the dead after having been killed by crucifixion.

  10. السلفية says:

    “martha_layton says: You all forget to refute Sam’s remarks on Jesus being saved through resurrection.
    Finally, even if we take Jesus’ name to imply that he would end up being saved by God the Father this still wouldn’t establish Ataie’s desperate polemics. Ataie erroneously assumes that the only way that God could have saved Jesus is by preventing him from being crucified. He conveniently forgets or overlooks the fact that there is another way in which God could have saved Jesus, namely, by raising him from the dead after having been killed by crucifixion.”

    Firstly, That’s not a forgiveness of all sin, not even remission of sins, but actually “remission of penalty” (commutation of punishment). Forgiveness is something which is sought and hoped for before any kind of penalty would be given.
    Triune God doesn’t actually save Jesus from his death and Hell, but He commutes and reduces his penalty after forsaking him alone.
    A definition of the terms and the words matters.

    Secondly, Sam Shamoun eventually gives up and agrees that God is He actually who “saves” Jesus? Well, interesting. It means Sam is able to concur with what his Islamic debater says concerning Jesus’ fate that “he is saved” per Psalms 20:6. Jesus can’t save himself, thus Jesus is not a God. That’s the point.
    Ps 20:6
    Now know I that the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand.

    Moreover, if he were being saved “after” being punished with a lot of sufferings of death in Hell, it is typical of a “fake” salvation, or in terms of theology it is a temporal purgatory to cleanse one’s self from existing sins.
    Do you Trinitarians believe in the purgatory for Jesus?
    Heb 5
    7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

  11. θ says:

    Yeah, Christianity is a religion of Purgatory coated with the Rabbinical Oral Law, namely “Pikuach Nefesh” (permission of saving man’s life by violating the law) which is labeled as a Christ’s grace.

  12. θ says:

    Qur’an Q.5, v.18 asks a validity of the alleged benefit claim of Jesus’ atonement in a simplest way: If as you claim that Jesus had paid the condemnation of your sins, Why do ye the Trinitarians still suffer in your death just like the sufferings in the death of the Non-Trinitarians?

    If as you claim that Jesus had ransomed you, What is the “proof” of it? In fact, both those alleged ransomed Trinitarians and the Non-ransomed people just died with equal sufferings.

    Why do you believe without any proof that Jesus died to ransom you? In fact, the Trinitarians just do “self-ransoming” for their own life with same sufferings and death.

    Q.5, v.18. But the Jews and the Christians say, We are the children of Allah and His beloved. Say, Then why does He punish you for your sins? Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the destination.

  13. السلفية says:

    That’s really staggering. The Jews believe in a tangible and real evidence of atonement, and it is measured by facts: that a proof for their sin was getting ransomed by the blood of sacrificial animals is the peaceful life in the Land of Israel.

    So, apparently the Vicarious Atonement is a degradation and a fraud of a professional fraudulent liar: The Trinitarians so blindly believe their debt is written off by just getting a blank cheque. Silly.

  14. Anonymous says:

    In the Unitarian belief, Jesus is not a forgiver, just as he never says “I am God”, also he never says “I forgive thee”. John illustrates a divine role how the “forgiver” of all sins is God alone:
    Jn 3:17
    For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

    John uses the phrase “Through him might be (the sinners) saved” for Jesus, not directly “he saves (the sinners)”.

  15. Anonymous says:

    These are basic doubts in the Christianity:
    – Preexistence? There’s no proof from the Bible that the Word is another conscious person other than God at time before the world began or before Abraham was.
    – Forgiver? There’s no proof from the NT Bible that Jesus ever forgives a sinner nor he ever says “I forgive thee” nor he is ever called “Redeemer”.
    – Polytheism? If we see the Trinitarian readings of the NT Bible, Jesus is attributed with “the” God instead of “God”, hence it makes him another polytheist God different than God.
    – Purgatory? There’s no proof from the NT Bible that God saves Jesus from punishment, in fact he is commutted (purgatory) from the ongoing penalty of Hell after he suffered it a lot.
    – Ransom? There’s no proof in the real life and from the NT Bible that Jesus had ransomed anyone and the Trinitarians from the same suffering in death.

  16. θ says:

    As a boy who was born without any father, Jesus is certainly counted as a pure boy in Islam and Christianity. But after reaching a mature age, Jesus turned unavoidably as a sinner. In Islam, his ascension to heaven has a certain purifying reason to “washing” the body and the soul of Jesus, so that he is forgiven of his sins.
    Some proofs that Jesus is a sinner in the Gospels:
    – violating the law by trampling it with the use of Rabbinical opinion “Pikuach Nefesh”.
    – commanding a man to violate Sabbath *after* being healed.
    – tempting the Jews to kill his body, or tempting the crowds to destroy a God’s house.
    – persuading the Christians to hate everyone.
    – persuading the Christians to violate the law, such as drinking the blood.
    – getting defiled by physically touching the leper.
    – getting defiled by the blood of a wounded ear of Malchus.
    – insulting the rulers by labeling them as vipers, serpent, people whose father is a devil.
    – blaspheming God by his claiming how getting healed means getting sins forgiven by his faith.
    – insulting the previous prophets as the robbers and hireling who abandoned the sheep.
    – letting himself be set by devil rather than resisting him.
    – refusing to visit Lasarus during his illness till his death.
    – telling a lie that even the hairs of his followers should not perish and shall not be hurt.
    – tempting the Christians to tempt God, namely to die by drinking the poisons to test the faith.

  17. θ says:

    In certain details, actually Jesus can’t fulfill even fails to be a servant of God in the prophesy of Isaiah 42 as Jesus acts contrary to the prophesy:
    – he openly breaks down the tree,
    – he weeps and cries on the streets,
    – last but not least, in Christianity he was a slain Prophet:
    Mt 12
    18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

    Jesus can’t be Isaiah’s prophesied servant because he breaks the tree:
    Mt 21:19
    And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away.

    Jesus can’t be Isaiah’s prophesied servant because he weeps, and cries on the streets of cities:
    Jn 11
    34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. 35 Jesus wept.
    Lk 8
    1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, 8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Don’t forget about a Non-Trinitarian fact in the Bible, that Jesus knows that he is fallible person who can’t avoid sins, thus he oftentimes prays in secret and at certain locations to God, even falling down thrice in the Gethsemane garden, just to say the notable words of his own teaching. i.e. praying that contains an imploring “forgive us”:
    Lk 11
    1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Vicarious atonement can’t be true so long as Jesus is not sinless, such as:
    – Christians can’t refute the facts how Jesus sinned.
    – Christians can’t disprove a way how Jesus prays by saying “forgive us our sins” as he teaches.

  20. السلفية says:

    Fabulous, that is a kind argument I am looking for.
    Alright, this is syllogism:
    1. Lord Prayer contains the asking of Father’s forgiveness of sins.
    2. Jesus prays.
    3. Jesus must be a sinful person who asks Father’s forgiveness of his sins.
    4. Therefore Jesus is not fitted for such a vicarious atonement, because a sinner can’t forgive the sins.

  21. السلفية says:

    “θ says: As a boy who was born without any father, Jesus is certainly counted as a pure boy in Islam and Christianity. But after reaching a mature age, Jesus turned unavoidably as a sinner. In Islam, his ascension to heaven has a certain purifying reason to “washing” the body and the soul of Jesus, so that he is forgiven of his sins.
    Some proofs that Jesus is a sinner in the Gospels:
    – violating the law by trampling it with the use of Rabbinical opinion “Pikuach Nefesh”.
    – commanding a man to violate Sabbath *after* being healed.
    – tempting the Jews to kill his body, or tempting the crowds to destroy a God’s house.
    – persuading the Christians to hate everyone.
    – persuading the Christians to violate the law, such as drinking the blood.
    – getting defiled by physically touching the leper.
    – getting defiled by the blood of a wounded ear of Malchus.
    – insulting the rulers by labeling them as vipers, serpent, people whose father is a devil.
    – blaspheming God by his claiming how getting healed means getting sins forgiven by his faith.
    – insulting the previous prophets as the robbers and hireling who abandoned the sheep.
    – letting himself be set by devil rather than resisting him.
    – refusing to visit Lasarus during his illness till his death.
    – telling a lie that even the hairs of his followers should not perish and shall not be hurt.
    – tempting the Christians to tempt God, namely to die by drinking the poisons to test the faith.”

    Marvelous evidences. Also I may add, that as the son of “his father” (in an immaterial sense a she doesn’t have father), Jesus disproved a claim of being a divine God’s son by confessing bluntly how he “cannot” pray for being helped by the angels.
    Inability is contrary to divinity.
    That is another important thing besides many things which Jesus “cannot” do. Thus, as he is limited, he is not God.
    Mt 26:53
    Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

  22. السلفية says:

    If Jesus were a God, he would not have prayed to the one whom he refers to as “my Father”.
    If Jesus were a God, he would not have prayed for getting helped by the mortals such as angels. How could a God still desperately “need” 12 mortals for a help against the bands of Roman soldiers?

  23. θ says:

    This is a strong evidence from John’s Gospel how Jesus intentionally commands a man to violate the Sabbath *after* that man gets healed of his lameness, thus actually the Rabbinical argument of Pikuach Nefesh doesn’t apply on that man any longer:

    Jn 5
    8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.