Mark 16:16~"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[Horatius]

Some people claim that our Lord should not be referred to as “Jesus.” Instead, we should only use the name “Yeshua.” Some even go so far as to say that calling Him “Jesus” is blasphemous. Others go into great detail about how the name “Jesus” is unbiblical because the letter J is a modern invention and there was no letter J in Greek or Hebrew.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.”

As for the controversy over the letter J, it is much ado about nothing. It is true that the languages in which the Bible was written had no letter J. But that doesn’t mean the Bible never refers to “Jerusalem” or “Judah.” And it doesn’t mean we cannot use the spelling “Jesus.” If a person speaks and reads English, it is acceptable for him to spell things in an English fashion. Spellings can change even within a language: Americans write “Savior,” while the British write “Saviour.” The addition of a u (or its subtraction, depending on your point of view) has nothing to do with whom we’re talking about. Jesus is the Savior, and He is the Saviour. Jesus and Yeshuah and Iesus are all referring to the same Person.

The Bible nowhere commands us to only speak or write His name in Hebrew or Greek. It never even hints at such an idea. Rather, when the message of the gospel was being proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the languages of the “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene” (Acts 2:9–10). In the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was made known to every language group in a way they could readily understand. Spelling did not matter.

We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same: the Lord is salvation. From Got?

 

[Doug Brents]

I ask you for the next month to only say "Jesus" when speaking of God.

I found it refreshing, spiritually.

Why would I say Jesus when speaking to the Father. I speak to the Father in Jesus' name (through Jesus' authority since all authority has been given to Him, and He told us to ask of the Father in His name). But I don't ask Jesus for things, since He told us to go to the Father, not to Himself. All of this, however, is completely understanding that the Father and Jesus are one, and so praying to one is the same as praying to the other.

 

[Adherent]

The RCC was the first official entity to teach others to skip Acts 2:38.

The protestants have not only skipped Acts 2:38 like their mother, they skipped baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins altogether.

They are way worse than their RCC mother.

They make her blush.

I don't think Catholics skip Acts 2:38 at all. Same goes for Protestants

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC), water baptism is the first sacrament and gives access to the other required sacraments. It is also the act that forgives sins, grants spiritual rebirth, and makes one a member of the church (CCC, 1213). The Catholic Church also believes that Jesus requires one’s baptism in order to receive eternal life.

Catholics view baptism as the means by which one receives the Holy Spirit. The sacrament is called “the gateway to life in the Spirit” (CCC, 1213). The “washing of rebirth” in Titus 3:5 is interpreted as a literal washing by water and is associated with the rite of baptism. The same is true for Jesus’ mention of being “born of water” in John 3:5. Even non-Catholics who have been baptized are considered “justified by faith in baptism” (CCC, 1271) because baptism incorporates all into Christ.

According to Catholicism, a long process precedes any hope for “salvation.” Required are a “proclamation of the Lord, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion” (CCC, 1229). Baptism is necessary because, according to Catholicism, “By baptism, all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sin” (CCC, 1263).

CCC 1274 teaches, “The Holy Spirit marks us at baptism with the seal of the Lord for the day of redemption.” However, there is no security in this seal, for the baptized Christian must be “faithful” to keep the seal “until the end.” Only then will he “be able to depart this life in the hope of resurrection.”

Catholics practice infant baptism, which they consider a gift of God’s grace. Infants and young children are “baptized in the faith of the Church” (CCC, 1282). Regarding children who have died without baptism, some Catholics believe they go to Limbo, a place on the border of heaven and hell. Limbo has never been an official church teaching, however. Officially, the Church ”can only entrust them to the mercy of God” and ”hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism” (CCC, 1261).

Catholics use verses such as Luke 18:15–16 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 in support of the practice of infant baptism. However, these passages are misused. The Bible does not teach infant baptism. In Luke 18, parents are bringing their children so that Jesus might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them for it. Christ told His disciples, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The Lord said nothing about baptizing infants here; He only said not to forbid children from following Him. To draw a teaching on baptism from this verse is incorrect.

In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul speaks of a family (a household) that was baptized. He says in verse 16, “I also baptized the household of Stephanas.” Do we know if infants or very young children were in Stephanas’s household? No. We do not know the ages of anyone in the household, and it is unwise to base a doctrine on assumptions.

So, we have some key differences in the Catholic doctrine of baptism compared to Scripture. One is that the Bible says to be baptized once we have faith and repent of our sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15–17); no one should be baptized “in the faith of the Church,” their parent’s faith, etc. The Bible says we receive the Holy Spirit when we have faith in Christ (Ephesians 1:13–14; Galatians 3:2–3). There is no other way to receive Him but by faith. Works, even the work of baptism, are not the reason a person is saved (Titus 3:5).

Catholics teach that a baptized person begins participating in eternal life at the moment of baptism, but they also teach he loses that “eternal” life and the Holy Spirit when he sins. The Bible says that a Christian might “grieve” the Holy Spirit, but the “seal” the Spirit places on us cannot be broken (Ephesians 4:30).

In all instances of baptism in the New Testament, the act always followed a person’s faith in and confession of Christ, along with repentance (e.g., Acts 8:35–38; 16:14–15; 18:8; and 19:4–5). Baptism is not what gives us salvation. Baptism is an act of obedience after faith.

 

[Alive]

The RCC was the first official entity to teach others to skip Acts 2:38.

The protestants have not only skipped Acts 2:38 like their mother, they skipped baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins altogether.

They are way worse than their RCC mother.

They make her blush.

If you were to ask me, “Is baptism necessary for the Christian?” I would say, “Absolutely.” It is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary for obedience, because Christ, with no ambiguity, commanded that all of those who belong to Him, who are part of the new covenant family, and who receive the benefits of His salvation are to be baptized in the Trinitarian formula. Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Adherent]

In Protestantism, baptism is not considered a means of salvation but rather as a public declaration of one's faith and a step of obedience to the teachings of Christ. It is a significant rite of passage that marks the beginning of a believer's journey in the Christian faith and their incorporation into the community of believers.

 

[Truther]

Some people claim that our Lord should not be referred to as “Jesus.” Instead, we should only use the name “Yeshua.” Some even go so far as to say that calling Him “Jesus” is blasphemous. Others go into great detail about how the name “Jesus” is unbiblical because the letter J is a modern invention and there was no letter J in Greek or Hebrew.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.”

As for the controversy over the letter J, it is much ado about nothing. It is true that the languages in which the Bible was written had no letter J. But that doesn’t mean the Bible never refers to “Jerusalem” or “Judah.” And it doesn’t mean we cannot use the spelling “Jesus.” If a person speaks and reads English, it is acceptable for him to spell things in an English fashion. Spellings can change even within a language: Americans write “Savior,” while the British write “Saviour.” The addition of a u (or its subtraction, depending on your point of view) has nothing to do with whom we’re talking about. Jesus is the Savior, and He is the Saviour. Jesus and Yeshuah and Iesus are all referring to the same Person.

The Bible nowhere commands us to only speak or write His name in Hebrew or Greek. It never even hints at such an idea. Rather, when the message of the gospel was being proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the languages of the “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene” (Acts 2:9–10). In the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was made known to every language group in a way they could readily understand. Spelling did not matter.

We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same: the Lord is salvation. From Got?

Yeshua is a fabricated name.

 

[Truther]

Why would I say Jesus when speaking to the Father. I speak to the Father in Jesus' name (through Jesus' authority since all authority has been given to Him, and He told us to ask of the Father in His name). But I don't ask Jesus for things, since He told us to go to the Father, not to Himself. All of this, however, is completely understanding that the Father and Jesus are one, and so praying to one is the same as praying to the other.

Can you go around Jesus since all of what God consists of dwell in Jesus' body?

You would have to say, "excuse me Jesus" but this conversation doesn't concern you".

 

[Truther]

I don't think Catholics skip Acts 2:38 at all. Same goes for Protestants

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC), water baptism is the first sacrament and gives access to the other required sacraments. It is also the act that forgives sins, grants spiritual rebirth, and makes one a member of the church (CCC, 1213). The Catholic Church also believes that Jesus requires one’s baptism in order to receive eternal life.

Catholics view baptism as the means by which one receives the Holy Spirit. The sacrament is called “the gateway to life in the Spirit” (CCC, 1213). The “washing of rebirth” in Titus 3:5 is interpreted as a literal washing by water and is associated with the rite of baptism. The same is true for Jesus’ mention of being “born of water” in John 3:5. Even non-Catholics who have been baptized are considered “justified by faith in baptism” (CCC, 1271) because baptism incorporates all into Christ.

According to Catholicism, a long process precedes any hope for “salvation.” Required are a “proclamation of the Lord, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion” (CCC, 1229). Baptism is necessary because, according to Catholicism, “By baptism, all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sin” (CCC, 1263).

CCC 1274 teaches, “The Holy Spirit marks us at baptism with the seal of the Lord for the day of redemption.” However, there is no security in this seal, for the baptized Christian must be “faithful” to keep the seal “until the end.” Only then will he “be able to depart this life in the hope of resurrection.”

Catholics practice infant baptism, which they consider a gift of God’s grace. Infants and young children are “baptized in the faith of the Church” (CCC, 1282). Regarding children who have died without baptism, some Catholics believe they go to Limbo, a place on the border of heaven and hell. Limbo has never been an official church teaching, however. Officially, the Church ”can only entrust them to the mercy of God” and ”hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism” (CCC, 1261).

Catholics use verses such as Luke 18:15–16 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 in support of the practice of infant baptism. However, these passages are misused. The Bible does not teach infant baptism. In Luke 18, parents are bringing their children so that Jesus might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them for it. Christ told His disciples, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The Lord said nothing about baptizing infants here; He only said not to forbid children from following Him. To draw a teaching on baptism from this verse is incorrect.

In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul speaks of a family (a household) that was baptized. He says in verse 16, “I also baptized the household of Stephanas.” Do we know if infants or very young children were in Stephanas’s household? No. We do not know the ages of anyone in the household, and it is unwise to base a doctrine on assumptions.

So, we have some key differences in the Catholic doctrine of baptism compared to Scripture. One is that the Bible says to be baptized once we have faith and repent of our sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15–17); no one should be baptized “in the faith of the Church,” their parent’s faith, etc. The Bible says we receive the Holy Spirit when we have faith in Christ (Ephesians 1:13–14; Galatians 3:2–3). There is no other way to receive Him but by faith. Works, even the work of baptism, are not the reason a person is saved (Titus 3:5).

Catholics teach that a baptized person begins participating in eternal life at the moment of baptism, but they also teach he loses that “eternal” life and the Holy Spirit when he sins. The Bible says that a Christian might “grieve” the Holy Spirit, but the “seal” the Spirit places on us cannot be broken (Ephesians 4:30).

In all instances of baptism in the New Testament, the act always followed a person’s faith in and confession of Christ, along with repentance (e.g., Acts 8:35–38; 16:14–15; 18:8; and 19:4–5). Baptism is not what gives us salvation. Baptism is an act of obedience after faith.

The RCC does not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Protestants don't baptize at all.

They are lower than Catholics.

 

[Truther]

If you were to ask me, “Is baptism necessary for the Christian?” I would say, “Absolutely.” It is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary for obedience, because Christ, with no ambiguity, commanded that all of those who belong to Him, who are part of the new covenant family, and who receive the benefits of His salvation are to be baptized in the Trinitarian formula. Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This is not necessary for salvation?...


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, ...

We can take our sins into the kingdom of God with us?

 

[Truther]

Yeshua is a fabricated name.

The NT was written in Greek and the Jews received the name Iesous from the angel in Greek.

 

[Lily]

Yeshua is a fabricated name.

You're kidding right?

Is this fabricated also?

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/mark-16-16-he-that-believeth-and-is-baptized-shall-be-saved-but-he-that-believeth-not-shall-be-damned.1452/post-81986

Makes one wonder where you come up with this stuff.

Hebrew name Yehoshua
The name Yeshua is derived from the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means "Yahweh is salvation"12. It is a contracted form of Yehoshu'a and was most likely the name represented by Greek Iesous (see Jesus) in the New Testament3. Yeshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus among Hebrew Christians.

The name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew name Yeshua/Y'shua, which means "to deliver; to rescue" or "Yahweh is salvation"1234. This Hebrew name is a shorter variant of the earlier name Yehoshua/Yəhōšūaʿ, which is also the Hebrew form of Joshua124. The Hebrew name was transliterated into Greek as Iēsous, and then into Latin as Iesus, and finally into English as Jesus123. The Greek word Christos, which means "the anointed one" or "Messiah", is a title that was added to the name Jesus, not a given name. AI generated

 

[Lily]

Can you go around Jesus since all of what God consists of dwell in Jesus' body?

You would have to say, "excuse me Jesus" but this conversation doesn't concern you".

If you can figure out what it concerns be sure to let us know.

 

[Truther]

You're kidding right?

Is this fabricated also?

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/mark-16-16-he-that-believeth-and-is-baptized-shall-be-saved-but-he-that-believeth-not-shall-be-damned.1452/post-81986

Makes one wonder where you come up with this stuff.

Hebrew name Yehoshua
The name Yeshua is derived from the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means "Yahweh is salvation"12. It is a contracted form of Yehoshu'a and was most likely the name represented by Greek Iesous (see Jesus) in the New Testament3. Yeshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus among Hebrew Christians.

The name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew name Yeshua/Y'shua, which means "to deliver; to rescue" or "Yahweh is salvation"1234. This Hebrew name is a shorter variant of the earlier name Yehoshua/Yəhōšūaʿ, which is also the Hebrew form of Joshua124. The Hebrew name was transliterated into Greek as Iēsous, and then into Latin as Iesus, and finally into English as Jesus123. The Greek word Christos, which means "the anointed one" or "Messiah", is a title that was added to the name Jesus, not a given name. AI generated

Jesus had no Hebrew name.

The Jews spoke Greek as their first language.

The gospels were also written in the Greek language in that era.

 

[Truther]

If you can figure out what it concerns be sure to let us know.

If you pray to Jesus you are praying to the Father by default.

They don't take turns answering.

 

[Truther]

Can we exclude one from the other in prayer?...


22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

 

[Truther]

This phenomenon is called the Col 2:9 effect.

 

[Doug Brents]

Can you go around Jesus since all of what God consists of dwell in Jesus' body?

You would have to say, "excuse me Jesus" but this conversation doesn't concern you".

Are you serious? "All of what God consists of dwell in Jesus' body"? Please tell me you don't believe that. Jesus emptied Himself of all of His power, glory, knowledge, authority when He became a man. The Father gave it all back to Him at His resurrection, but neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit emptied themselves, nor were they incarnate with Jesus. Not even all of the third of God that is Jesus was present in Jesus' body.

 

[Horatius]

Jesus had no Hebrew name.

The Jews spoke Greek as their first language.

The gospels were also written in the Greek language in that era.

Wrong again,

The English Joshua and Jesus come from one Hebrew name: Yeshua. So Joshua is the name Mary would have heard when the angel first spoke it. “You shall call his name Yeshua” (Luke 1:31) — one of the great names in the history of God’s people.

Although the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel in the time of Jesus knew Aramaic and used it in their contacts with the ordinary, non-Jewish residents, Hebrew was their first or native language. It is especially clear that in enlightened circles such as those of Jesus and his disciples, Hebrew was the dominant spoken language.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. This claim is not particularly controversial among biblical scholars, though some have argued that parts of the New Testament were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related languages of the so-called “Semitic” branch (of the Afroasiatic family), and they mixed and influenced each other to a large extent during this period.

Aramaic is not Greek.

Aramaic is a Northwest Semitic language that originated in the ancient region of Syria and quickly spread to Mesopotamia, the southern Levant, southeastern Anatolia, Eastern Arabia and the Sinai Peninsula, where it has been continually written and spoken in different varieties for over three thousand years.

 

[Adherent]

The RCC does not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Protestants don't baptize at all.

They are lower than Catholics.

I have to agree with @Horatius ... Wrong again!

Roman Catholics do not need to do it the way you like it. They're going by what the bible says.

Matthew 28:19-20 King James Version (KJV)Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
It is administered by immersing the recipient in water or by pouring water on the person's head “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

The two most important and common rituals among the Protestant denominations are baptism and communion (also known as the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist). In some Protestant denominations, these two practices are referred to collectively as 'sacraments' or 'ordinances'.

 

[Red Baker]

Thanks to this passage and numerous other biblical affirmations, the sacrament of baptism has occupied a central role in the church throughout its history and is an important aspect of Christian worship. Yet we find that a great deal of controversy surrounds the subject of baptism.

It seems there are questions over just about every aspect of the sacrament: the origin or institution of baptism; the meaning of baptism; the administration of baptism' such as who is allowed. to baptize people.

Richard, thanks for your post, please allow me to only mention this for now~baptism is not a sacrament, as preached by EOC and RCC, one of their seven ~ Baptism does not convey grace in any way whatsoever~water baptism is one of the two ordinances of the NT church of God/Christ. The Lord's supper being the other.

Roman Catholics have seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, confession/penance, holy matrimony, holy orders, the Mass, and last rites, or extreme unction. Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians are all sacramentalists. They teach baptismal regeneration by assuming God’s grace can be given to children at birth; Presbyterians will often deny it, because most do not know their own Westminster Confession.