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

[gordon777]

Baptism debate/discussion saves us, or it stops anyone being saved, because it portrays belief in Christ through the eyes of men, who talk, have strife, instead of do deeds and truth ?



1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.




Of course this forum wants to have itself with a reason for discussion, to be busy in talking, so it defends the use of debate and dispute, it has a reason to do wrong that has been done for many years daily.


But the point here is, it is better to not do wrong, and to have a quiet place, than to have done years and years of wrong wisdom of God. The wisdom from above is peaceable, is it not time to change the way the forums do things, even after they are found out for never dong the right way and trying to defend itself now, when it is asked, why do you allow wrong ways in the name of the Lord ?

Every evil work is where there is debate, strife, disputes, why wont the one who claim to be Christians, maintain a forum like that instead ?

So simple, baptism saves us is not by discussion, but by belief, there is nothing to discuss, it is proven it is for the purpose of debate only then.



James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

 

[DJT_47]

According to a careful comparison of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38-39, the Father's name specifically, and of the Son and Spirit, is Jesus Christ.

I don't know what you mean. But, either scripture is OK because both simply mean the baptism is by their authority.

Look, I've been a member of the coC for close to 50 years, so being such, I'm a 100000% believer that baptism is necessary for salvation. That's not the issue as I see it. The issue is how the process is conducted and our emphasis being more on the baptizer vs. the one being baptized, and what the baptizer says or says incorrectly at the time of baptism that we erroneously think influences the baptism or even invalidates it. That makes no sense. If the one desiring to be baptized, immersed in water, believes, confesses their belief, and repents or is repentant, what's left? Only their immersion! Why is it important that the baptizer say anything? Or what if the baptizer says something that some feel to be errant, like cite Matt 28:19 instead of Acts 2:38? Would that invalidate the baptism? Would the one immersed not be saved because of what the baptizer said or didn't say? Makes no sense. Too much emphasis on the baptizer.

I'll provide some other scriptural information and observation below for further consideration.

Although we today make reference to Matthew 28:19 and/or Acts 2:38 as guides to follow, one saying something different than the other causing confusion and controversy, with either one or the other typically used at the time of baptism in somewhat of a ceremonial process being verbalized by the one performing the baptism, you'll find no record in the scriptures of any such thing occurring at the time of baptism or just prior to the actual act of the baptizer performing the immersion (baptism) of the new believer. Nowhere can be found a baptizer saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", or, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" or anything similar or anything at all for that matter. What you do find is simply that the person or persons were simply immediately baptized.

Also, in only two instances recorded, you'll find that anything at all was said or required to be said relative to either of these 2 scriptures, and in both instances, it's the one being baptized that either says something or is told to say something. Those 2 instances are found in Acts 8 and Acts 22.

In Acts 8:34-38 below KJV, you'll see in verse 37 that upon believing, the Ethiopian eunuch confirmed his belief verbally in the presence of only Philip, by stating he believed "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God". Immediately after that, verse 38 days he was baptized, immersed in water. Nothing else was recorded as being said by the baptizer, Philip, prior to the baptism. Note too this is also consistent with the requirement of Romans 10:9-10, that belief and confession are a necessary part of the salvation process.

"34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

Romans 10:9-10

"9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

In Acts 22:6-16 below KJV, Saul (Paul) recounts his conversion which is initially recorded in Acts 9:3-19. And you'll notice what is said in verse 16 of this scripture. Upon Paul's belief, Paul was told to "be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord". ("of Him" 'autou', in the original Greek per the interlinear.)

"16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

So, it raises questions in my mind, such as, was anything more said by the baptizers of the bible unlike today? Was or is anything really necessary to be said by baptizers today? Does whatever is said 'incorrectly' or thought to be incorrect by baptizers today have effect on the validity of the baptism? Speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent. Is this applicable here as well? Were the baptizers silent? Are we as baptizers silent today? Should we be simply immersing those who have heard the gospel, believed it, confessed their belief, and repented? It's a good question. Were the 3000 that believed as noted in Acts 2:37-42, immediately baptized by who knows how many baptizers, or was some sort of ceremonial words spoken before each as they were baptized?"

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that being baptized according to the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19) might be valid if it is acknowledged that in doing so, one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38); whether that happens at the time of baptism or later.

But if someone is baptized according to Matthew 28:19 and does not acknowledge or understand that they have been baptized specifically in the name of Jesus Christ (as it is a singular name in Matthew 28:19, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost),

Then it should be clear that there is salvation only in one name (Acts 4:10-12) and if someone is specifically not baptized in that name (i,e. they do not acknowledge that the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, is that name, in being baptized according to Matthew 28:19),

Then, since water baptism is a salvational work of the Lord (1 Peter 3:20-21), therefore, if it is not in the name, specifically, of Jesus Christ, then the person has not been saved through that baptism (again, Acts 4:10-12).

But if someone is baptized according to Matthew 28:19, they will receive salvation the moment they acknowledge that it is indeed the name of Jesus Christ that they have been baptized in.

A verse that comes to mind, for some reason, is Colossians 2:9 (kjv).

 

[justbyfaith]

Two threads stopped so far, one for Jehovah witness, and one for who Jesus is.

No; actually they were moved to another forum.

This third is remaining, about baptism, it is causing strife, it is blasphemy, not glory for God.

There is nothing blasphemous about this thread.

As a matter of fact, people reading it may even come to salvation!

Because of this, the devil will try anything in order to try and get it removed from the forums.

he doesn't play fair...he uses any tactic he can think of to accomplish his goals.

I also do not see any strife between those who are posting in this thread.

It appears to me to be a discussion that is very civil.

 

[justbyfaith]

Baptism debate/discussion saves us, or it stops anyone being saved, because it portrays belief in Christ through the eyes of men, who talk, have strife, instead of do deeds and truth ?



1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.




Of course this forum wants to have itself with a reason for discussion, to be busy in talking, so it defends the use of debate and dispute, it has a reason to do wrong that has been done for many years daily.


But the point here is, it is better to not do wrong, and to have a quiet place, than to have done years and years of wrong wisdom of God. The wisdom from above is peaceable, is it not time to change the way the forums do things, even after they are found out for never dong the right way and trying to defend itself now, when it is asked, why do you allow wrong ways in the name of the Lord ?

Every evil work is where there is debate, strife, disputes, why wont the one who claim to be Christians, maintain a forum like that instead ?

So simple, baptism saves us is not by discussion, but by belief, there is nothing to discuss, it is proven it is for the purpose of debate only then.



James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

The discussion in this thread has actually been very civil compared to some other threads that I have looked at.

There is no debate or bitter envying or strife here.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that being baptized according to the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19) might be valid if it is acknowledged that in doing so, one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38); whether that happens at the time of baptism or later.

But if someone is baptized according to Matthew 28:19 and does not acknowledge or understand that they have been baptized specifically in the name of Jesus Christ (as it is a singular name in Matthew 28:19, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost),

Then it should be clear that there is salvation only in one name (Acts 4:10-12) and if someone is specifically not baptized in that name (i,e. they do not acknowledge that the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, is that name, in being baptized according to Matthew 28:19),

Then, since water baptism is a salvational work of the Lord (1 Peter 3:20-21), therefore, if it is not in the name, specifically, of Jesus Christ, then the person has not been saved through that baptism (again, Acts 4:10-12).

But if someone is baptized according to Matthew 28:19, they will receive salvation the moment they acknowledge that it is indeed the name of Jesus Christ that they have been baptized in.

A verse that comes to mind, for some reason, is Colossians 2:9 (kjv).

But if there is doubt, one should be baptized again.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

According to a careful comparison of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38-39, the Father's name specifically, and of the Son and Spirit, is Jesus Christ.

"Jesus Christ" is not the Father's name, and neither Matthew 28:19, nor Acts 2:38-39, nor any other passage of the Bible teaches that it is. Rather, "Jesus Christ" is the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[DJT_47]

I think that being baptized according to the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19) might be valid if it is acknowledged that in doing so, one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38); whether that happens at the time of baptism or later.

But if someone is baptized according to Matthew 28:19 and does not acknowledge or understand that they have been baptized specifically in the name of Jesus Christ (as it is a singular name in Matthew 28:19, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost),

Then it should be clear that there is salvation only in one name (Acts 4:10-12) and if someone is specifically not baptized in that name (i,e. they do not acknowledge that the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, is that name, in being baptized according to Matthew 28:19),

Then, since water baptism is a salvational work of the Lord (1 Peter 3:20-21), therefore, if it is not in the name, specifically, of Jesus Christ, then the person has not been saved through that baptism (again, Acts 4:10-12).

But if someone is baptized according to Matthew 28:19, they will receive salvation the moment they acknowledge that it is indeed the name of Jesus Christ that they have been baptized in.

A verse that comes to mind, for some reason, is Colossians 2:9 (kjv).

If in the pre-immersion process that we typically fo today such as was done in Acts 8 by the Ethiopian eunuch, the confession of belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, what more needs to be said or acknowledged either party? God knows why you're being baptized and you've just confirmed your belief and faith in Christ! That's been my whole point all along. If you look at Acts 2:38, it says

"38Then 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."

So if you look at "Repent and be baptized" and stop there, the rest simply is telling you why; "for the remission of sins". It doesn't mean or infer that that phrase had to be recited by anyone, it simply tells you why you're being baptized which God knows very well why and you've already confirmed your belief and faith. Nothing more really needs to he said, simply immerse.

And likewise, if in the pre-immersion process, the same confession is made, nothing more needs to be said even whether or not Matthew 28:19 is or is not referred to by the baptizer. Nothing really needs to be said at all confirming anything. Once again, it appears we're maybe interjecting additional unnecessary things into the process that is really not scriptural as I've pointed out as well as being unnecessary, plus it also causes confusion such as we're now discussing.

I just went through this same discussion on another forum with a brother coC member who stated be was rebaptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" because he was previously baptized at some earlier point "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ", and he was worried about the 1st baptism being invalid! And that's after, assuming, he had gone through the pre-immersion confession, as did the Ethiopian eunuch, verbally confirming that Jesus Christ is the Son of God! That seems absolutely crazy to me. Mankind has confused the simple process and has made it not only confusing but as well as unscriptural, and controversial by adding steps and acknowledgements not able to be traced back to scripture.

1. Belief and faith
2. Confession of belief as did the Ethiopian eunuch and consistent with Romans 10:9-10
3. Repentance
4. Baptism

THAT'S IT, THAT'S ALL, nothing in between repentance and immersion, no words, phrases, added acknowledgements or understands, etc. by either party.

Mark 16:15-16

"15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

It's simple as intended so even the simplest of people can embrace it. God doesn't make things difficult: we do.

 

[justbyfaith]

You can confess that "Jesus is the Son of God"...

However, what is meant by that when you say it?

Jehovah's Witnesses have a different definition of that than do orthodox people; and if you have an idea in your mind that is similar to theirs, then your confession would not make your baptism salvational...

It is important that, in your baptism, you acknowledge that you are being baptized in the name of:

1) the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost; and,

2) Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

If, in confessing that "Jesus is the Son of God" with a Matthew 28:19 baptism, you are indeed confessing that the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is "Jesus Christ" (see Colossians 2:9 (kjv)),

Then that is the only instance in which a Matthew 28:19 baptism would be salvational (see Acts 4:10-12); whether that confession is made at the time of baptism or later.

 

[justbyfaith]

"Jesus Christ" is not the Father's name, and neither Matthew 28:19, nor Acts 2:38-39, nor any other passage of the Bible teaches that it is. Rather, "Jesus Christ" is the name of Jesus Christ.

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

No getting around that.

Since the name of the Son is "Jesus Christ" and they have a singular name according to Matthew 28:19, it follows that the name of the Father is also "Jesus Christ".

 

[DJT_47]

You can confess that "Jesus is the Son of God"...

However, what is meant by that when you say it?

Jehovah's Witnesses have a different definition of that than do orthodox people; and if you have an idea in your mind that is similar to theirs, then your confession would not make your baptism salvational...

It is important that, in your baptism, you acknowledge that you are being baptized in the name of:

1) the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost; and,

2) Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

If, in confessing that "Jesus is the Son of God" with a Matthew 28:19 baptism, you are indeed confessing that the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is "Jesus Christ" (see Colossians 2:9 (kjv)),

Then that is the only instance in which a Matthew 28:19 baptism would be salvational (see Acts 4:10-12); whether that confession is made at the time of baptism or later.

How can it be important to make acknowledgements as you've indicated when there's no record of anyone doing so in the biblical record? If it were as important as you assert there would surely be at least one example of a new believer doing it and a baptizer explaining it. Did the Ethiopian eunuch make any acknowledgement other than his belief confession? Did anyone else? No.

 

[justbyfaith]

How can it be important to make acknowledgements as you've indicated when there's no record of anyone doing so in the biblical record? If it were as important as you assert there would surely be at least one example of a new believer doing it and a baptizer explaining it. Did the Ethiopian eunuch make any acknowledgement other than his belief confession? Did anyone else? No.

It should be clear that there is only one name by which a man can be saved in holy scripture (Acts 4:10-12);

And that if I am baptized in titles, it becomes important to also be baptized in the name;

At least, one should acknowledge that the "name" of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth"...

For if you acknowledge that baptism has the power to save, then Acts 4:10-12 teaches us that it is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that saves;

And if you are baptized in titles, it should also be clear that you are not saved until,

1) you are baptized in the name;

or,

2) you acknowledge that the titles represent that singular name (Jesus Christ of Nazareth).

 

[DJT_47]

It should be clear that there is only one name by which a man can be saved in holy scripture (Acts 4:10-12);

And that if I am baptized in titles, it becomes important to also be baptized in the name;

At least, one should acknowledge that the "name" of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth"...

For if you acknowledge that baptism has the power to save, then Acts 4:10-12 teaches us that it is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that saves;

And if you are baptized in titles, it should also be clear that you are not saved until,

1) you are baptized in the name;

or,

2) you acknowledge that the titles represent that singular name (Jesus Christ of Nazareth).

I've made my point. I absolutely believe the scriptures regarding baptism being a requirement for salvation, I'm simply questioning how we currently do it today as opposed to the bible as we appear to be interjecting added, unnecessary requirements that the early Christians didn't do, causing confusion.
Goodbye

 

[justbyfaith]

I've made my point. I absolutely believe the scriptures regarding baptism being a requirement for salvation, I'm simply questioning how we currently do it today as opposed to the bible as we appear to be interjecting added, unnecessary requirements that the early Christians didn't do, causing confusion.
Goodbye

Again, I would merely point out to you what it says here:

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.

It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that we are saved; and if saved in baptism, then the baptism must be in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

Remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost are absolutely promised to all who repent and receive this ordinance (Acts 2:38-39).

It is a conditional promise given to as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:39).

Consider.

Rom 8:30, Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[justbyfaith]

I've made my point. I absolutely believe the scriptures regarding baptism being a requirement for salvation, I'm simply questioning how we currently do it today as opposed to the bible as we appear to be interjecting added, unnecessary requirements that the early Christians didn't do, causing confusion.
Goodbye

In the first century the disciples didn't baptize according to Matthew 28:19.

All throughout the book of Acts, you find them baptizing "in the name of the Lord Jesus".

It wasn't until the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. that certain people began to baptize according to Matthew 28:19.

One reason why the real truth of the Trinity wouldn't have been championed by someone baptized in His name at certain councils in the 4th century.

 

[justbyfaith]

How can it be important to make acknowledgements as you've indicated when there's no record of anyone doing so in the biblical record? If it were as important as you assert there would surely be at least one example of a new believer doing it and a baptizer explaining it. Did the Ethiopian eunuch make any acknowledgement other than his belief confession? Did anyone else? No.

They didn't baptize according to Matthew 28:19 in the first century. Since they were already baptized in Jesus' Name, there was no need for them to acknowledge the name of Jesus in having been baptized in titles. They had already acknowledged that name in that they were baptized in it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

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

That's still false, despite your repetition of it. Besides, you earlier said that a title is not a name/a name is not a title. So, is "Jesus Christ" a name, or is it a title? Which is it?

No getting around that.

No getting around the fact that you keep repeating that falsehood.

Since the name of the Son is "Jesus Christ"

Is it? Or, is "Jesus Christ" a title of the Son, while the name of the Son is "Jesus" (Matthew 1:21)?

and they have a singular name according to Matthew 28:19,

What exactly do you mean by "they have a singular name"?

it follows that the name of the Father is also "Jesus Christ".

If "Jesus Christ" is a title, and according to you a title is not a name, then how could "Jesus Christ" be the name of the Father?

 

[justbyfaith]

I'll try to be patient here with you, Paul E. Michael.

That's still false, despite your repetition of it. Besides, you earlier said that a title is not a name/a name is not a title. So, is "Jesus Christ" a name, or is it a title? Which is it?

1) It is not false. Matthew 28:19 tells us that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost have one name. Acts 2:38 w/ Acts 4:10-12 clarifies that that name is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth".

2) "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is a name according to Acts 4:10-12.

No getting around the fact that you keep repeating that falsehood.

It is not a falsehood.

Is it? Or, is "Jesus Christ" a title of the Son, while the name of the Son is "Jesus" (Matthew 1:21)?

I suppose that it can be said technically, that "Christ" is a title; while "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is a name according to 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.

What exactly do you mean by "they have a singular name"?

one name -- Jesus Christ of Nazareth (compare Matthew 28:19 to Acts 2:38 and Acts 4:10-12) (I am fully aware that you will not look at these verses or compare them except this statement goads you to do so).

If "Jesus Christ" is a title, and according to you a title is not a name, then how could "Jesus Christ" be the name of the Father?

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth" the name by which alone a man can be saved, is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost according to a careful comparison of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38.

The only way that I think that you might be unable to see it is if 1 Corinthians 2:14 comes into play; or 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

(I see that you are trying to mince words by distinguishing that "Christ" is a title applied to Jesus; as He was and is the Messiah; or, the Christ.

I will also say that "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is His name according to Acts 4:10-12).

scriptures to ponder:

Mat 28:19, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Act 2:38, 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.

Question 1: was Peter being disobedient to Jesus' baptismal formula?

Question 2: Did Peter have the Holy Ghost (see Acts 5:32)?

Question 3: Could Peter impart the Holy Ghost through baptism, if he did not have Him himself (see Ezekiel 36:25-27)?

God says, 'I will sprinkle clean water on you..."

The only way Ezekiel 36:25-27 works is if the person baptizing has the Holy Ghost; and therefore the baptizing is being done by God Himself.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It is not false.

That's false, too.

the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost have one name.

What do you mean?

Acts 2:38 w/ Acts 4:10-12 clarifies that that name is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth".

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is not a name of the Father, and obviously neither of those Acts passages you gave teaches that it is.

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is not a name of the Holy Ghost, and obviously neither of those Acts passages you gave teaches that it is.

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is a name according to Acts 4:10-12.

Of course it is a name, so long as someone or something is named by it. The question is, is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" a title? Since you claim that a name is not a title, according to you, "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is not a title, since it's a name.

It is not a falsehood.

That's a falsehood, too.

I suppose that it can be said technically, that "Christ" is a title

I did not ask you about the single word, "Christ". I asked you about the two-word phrase you used, viz., "Jesus Christ":

Besides, you earlier said that a title is not a name/a name is not a title. So, is "Jesus Christ" a name, or is it a title? Which is it?

justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

 

[justbyfaith]

Those who read and study what I am saying to everyone, looking up the verses that I am referencing, if they are honest in their acclamation of the verses, will discover that what I am saying is true and faithful.

I think that Paul E. Michael, here, is either in denial through his own cognitive dissonance, or else he is simply denying the truth that is plainly set before everyone for the sake of argument; as if his denial of the truth would make the truth any less true; even in the eyes of whom it has been plainly laid forth.

Those who honestly look at the scriptures in question, without denial (it ain't just a river in Egypt), will understand that, according to Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19, "Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

You can either listen to what the scriptures teach or else you can listen to those who deny what the scriptures teach.

This reminds me of one scripture in particular:

1Jo 4:5, They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1Jo 4:6, We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.