Salvation through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

[Free]

That's what I'm saying. When we identify Him by name, we qualify that He isn't just "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth" but "Jesus Christ of Nazareth".

Every element in some cases, is needed to identify the true Messiah.

In very few cases. In fact, I don't think Nazareth is needed in any case. There is only one Jesus [the] Christ. Many people even know that if someone mentions Jesus in a given context, they are talking about Jesus [the] Christ. There really is no need to say more; his name is Jesus. Christ is a title and Nazareth is the place he was from.

If we merely say "Jesus", or even "Jesus Christ" (the Antichrist may have the first name Jesus and would therefore try and usurp that title), or "Jesus of Nazareth" (as there may be a Jesus who lived in Nazareth other than our Lord at some point in history), then we may be referring to the wrong Jesus.

It is important to have the right Jesus, wouldn't you say (see 2 Corinthians 11:3-4)?

The scriptures are clear that we have one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Because the Father is Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18), the Son is Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3), and the Holy Spirit is Lord (2 Corinthians 3:17).

And there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6).

That with the true Jesus, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth within Him bodily (Colossians 2:9).

This is all moot, as per my above response.

Even as the singular name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19) is "Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38).

This is not the case. In Matt 28:19, the most likely name, being that this is a continuation of the Jewish story, is Yahweh. Jesus is the name of only the second person in the Trinity, the Son, who came in the flesh.

They had to refer to him as "Justus" in order to distinguish him from "Jesus Christ of Nazareth"; since they generally called Him by shorter versions of His Name.

Technically, Jesus [the] Christ's name is just Jesus. As for calling the other Jesus, Justus, it may or may not have been in order to distinguish him from Jesus. Be careful to not go beyond the text. Col 4:1a simply states, "Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends his greetings." Justus is a Roman name and this was in the letter to the Colossians. That is just likely the name that this person used.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is not the case. In Matt 28:19, the most likely name, being that this is a continuation of the Jewish story, is Yahweh. Jesus is the name of only the second person in the Trinity, the Son, who came in the flesh.

So, since the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is YHWH, that would mean that the name of the Son is YHWH and not Jesus Christ?

In a similar manner, Acts 2:38 reveals to us what the "name" singular, in Matthew 28:19 is..."Jesus Christ".

Therefore does that mean that the name of the Father is Jesus Christ and not YHWH?

I think that the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is in fact YHWH; however this does not exclude the name "Jesus Christ" from the equation; for Jesus Christ is YHWH and YHWH is Jesus Christ (see, again, Colossians 2:9 (kjv)).

Again, the name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is revealed to us clearly in Acts 2:38.

It is one "name" that we are baptized in.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter did not baptize them "in the name of YHWH for the remission of sins".

But Jesus told him to baptize in the name of the Father...

and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

In obedience, he baptized them in the name of "Jesus Christ" for the remission of sins.

 

[justbyfaith]

If you do not trust in the name of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" I fear you may be trusting in a different Jesus.

That may be why you don't want to specify Jesus Christ of Nazareth as being your Lord and Saviour.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 does in fact speak of the danger of trusting in alternate Jesus Christs to what scripture teaches.

 

[Free]

So, since the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is YHWH, that would mean that the name of the Son is YHWH and not Jesus Christ?

In a similar manner, Acts 2:38 reveals to us what the "name" singular, in Matthew 28:19 is..."Jesus Christ".

Therefore does that mean that the name of the Father is Jesus Christ and not YHWH?

I think that the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is in fact YHWH; however this does not exclude the name "Jesus Christ" from the equation; for Jesus Christ is YHWH and YHWH is Jesus Christ (see, again, Colossians 2:9 (kjv)).

Again, the name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is revealed to us clearly in Acts 2:38.

It is one "name" that we are baptized in.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter did not baptize them "in the name of YHWH for the remission of sins".

But Jesus told him to baptize in the name of the Father...

and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

In obedience, he baptized them in the name of "Jesus Christ" for the remission of sins.

The Son’s name alone is Jesus. God as Trinity has many names, but none of them is Jesus.

If you do not trust in the name of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" I fear you may be trusting in a different Jesus.

That may be why you don't want to specify Jesus Christ of Nazareth as being your Lord and Saviour.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 does in fact speak of the danger of trusting in alternate Jesus Christs to what scripture teaches.

You have certainly presumed far too much. I am as secure in my salvation in the Jesus of the Bible as he is secure in his name as Jesus. Your position on this actually makes him out to be insecure.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Son’s name alone is Jesus. God as Trinity has many names, but none of them is Jesus.

Again, the name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is revealed to us clearly in Acts 2:38.

It is one "name" that we are baptized in.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter did not baptize them "in the name of YHWH for the remission of sins".

But Jesus told him to baptize in the name of the Father...

and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

In obedience, he baptized them in the name of "Jesus Christ" for the remission of sins.

 

[jaybo]

Fine by me; as long as you don't go trusting in another Jesus because you have not specified the name of the real Jesus properly.

You can try to cast out demons in the name of Jesus of Nazareth; but if you are not talking about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, nothing is going to happen.

Likewise with salvation in Acts 4:10-12.

You wrote "You can try to cast out demons in the name of Jesus of Nazareth; but if you are not talking about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, nothing is going to happen.". Do you in fact realize the redundancy in this meaningless statement?

For example, Mark 1:1 reads, ":The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ." So was Mark referring to somebody else?

How about John 1:17, "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." and John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." So was John referring to somebody else?

And in Acts 2:38, Peter said, "Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." and Acts 9:34, "“Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!” And immediately he got up." was Peter referring to somebody else?

And in Acts 16:18, Paul said, "She kept doing this for many days. But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour." And in Romans 1:1, "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,Was Paul referring to someone else?

I could keep going on and on but there is no point. If Mark, John, Peter, Paul and others don't say the complete phrase "Jesus Christ of Nazareth", then none of us need to either. It is obvious in context.

 

[justbyfaith]

You wrote "You can try to cast out demons in the name of Jesus of Nazareth; but if you are not talking about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, nothing is going to happen.". Do you in fact realize the redundancy in this meaningless statement?

For example, Mark 1:1 reads, ":The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ." So was Mark referring to somebody else?

How about John 1:17, "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." and John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." So was John referring to somebody else?

And in Acts 2:38, Peter said, "Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." and Acts 9:34, "“Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!” And immediately he got up." was Peter referring to somebody else?

And in Acts 16:18, Paul said, "She kept doing this for many days. But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour." And in Romans 1:1, "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,Was Paul referring to someone else?

I could keep going on and on but there is no point. If Mark, John, Peter, Paul and others don't say the complete phrase "Jesus Christ of Nazareth", then none of us need to either. It is obvious in context.

Since the context is the gospel of Jesus Christ who lived in Nazareth, it is clear that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Person being spoken of in all those verses.

When it comes to the name that all of us must be saved by, it is also clear that that Name is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth". And I believe that it is important to specify that Name by using every element when we baptize.

There are people even in today's world who claim to be Jesus Christ. However, they don't live in Nazareth; so He can be distinguished from them by specifying the place of His residence.

Otherwise, when I say "Jesus Christ", I may be referring to one of them.

But if I specify "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" it narrows the field.

It narrows the field even further to say "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem".

We may have to do that at some point.

 

[justbyfaith]

See Acts 4:10-12.

Act 4:10, Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11, This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is a good thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

A related thread...

Coexistent modalism...the true Trinity.

Here is how I define the Trinity. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity (John 4:23-24, Isaiah 57:15). The Son is the same Spirit come in flesh (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7). The Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as He is released from the physical body of...

christianforums.net

 

[justbyfaith]

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[justbyfaith]

*

 

[Power_on_HIgh]

I would like here to make a case for baptism in Jesus' Name.

If water baptism died on the Cross for your sin, then you are correct, and keep believing that water washes away your sin.

However, if God is True, and HE said that "without the shedding of Blood (Jesus on the Cross) there is no forgiveness, remission, cleansing, of sin"... then you should believe what God said, instead.

Its really up to you, as you get to choose where you place your faith.

A.) The City Water supply.

B.) New Covenant..... The Cross of Christ.... the Blood Atonement.

After you are dead, you don't get a "redo" on that choice, so you better get it right the first time.

JOHN 14:6

 

[gordon777]

If water baptism died on the Cross for your sin, then you are correct, and keep believing that water washes away your sin.

However, if God is True, and HE said that "without the shedding of Blood (Jesus on the Cross) there is no forgiveness, remission, cleansing, of sin"... then you should believe what God said, instead.

Its really up to you, as you get to choose where you place your faith.

A.) The City Water supply.

B.) New Covenant..... The Cross of Christ.... the Blood Atonement.

After you are dead, you don't get a "redo" on that choice, so you better get it right the first time.

JOHN 14:6

Water baptism is what Jesus did, nothing can be spoken against it.

Then water is what Jesus gives us, ( the Holy Spirit.) and that water came out of Him, as did HIs blood, the Spirit in the blood.


1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.




Nothing should disagree, people that disagree are not in agreement with God.

 

[Power_on_HIgh]

Water baptism is what Jesus did, nothing can be spoken against it.

No one is "speaking against" water baptism.
But Real Christianity is not based on the city water supply.
Its based on the Blood Atonement.

Paul said "Christ sent me not to water baptize".

So, its the over-emphasis of water that is the error, not the water baptism itself.