Another Roman Catholic who doesn't know the Gospel
Allah is a god 🤔
What is the Sacred Name Movement?
Question: "What is the Sacred Name Movement?"
Answer: Related to the Hebrew Roots Movement, the Sacred Name Movement developed from the Church of God (Seventh Day) in the 1930s. Supposedly, the movement began in response to study of Proverbs 30:4, “What is his name, and what is the name of his son?” The Sacred Name Movement teaches that only “Yahweh” is to be used as the name for God and only “Yahshua” is to be used as the name for Jesus. According to the Sacred Name Movement, the use of any other name is blasphemy.
In addition to a strong emphasis on the use of the original Hebrew names for God and Jesus, the Sacred Name Movement also teaches that followers of Yeshua must obey the Old Testament Law, especially the commands regarding the seventh-day Sabbath, the kosher food laws, and the Jewish festivals.
From the original Sacred Name Movement, several subgroups have formed, including the Assemblies of Yahweh, the Assembly of Yahweh, the House of Yahweh, and Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry.
The Sacred Name Movement errs in many ways. But the primary error is the same as that of the Hebrew Roots Movement. The Sacred Name Movement fails to understand that the Savior did not come to expand Judaism or the Old Covenant. The Savior came to fulfill the Old Covenant and establish the New Covenant. Messiah’s death and resurrection fulfilled the requirements of the Law and freed us from its demands (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). The Old Covenant was but a shadow (Hebrews 8). The New Covenant, established by our Savior/Messiah, is a fulfillment, not a continuation.
The particular focus of the Sacred Name Movement on the names of God and Jesus is unbiblical. The human authors of the Old and New Testaments, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had no qualms about referring to God as Elohim (Hebrew) and Theos (Greek) or referring to the Son as Iesous (Greek). If it is biblically appropriate to use generic terms to refer to God and to use a Greek version of Jesus’ name, why is it wrong, in English, to refer to the Heavenly Father as “God” and the Messiah as “Jesus”? Why would it be wrong to use the Chinese, Spanish, or Russian pronunciation and spelling of those names and titles?
Further, not even the adherents of the Sacred Name Movement can completely agree on what the sacred names actually are. While “Yahweh” and “Yahshua” are the most common, some propose “Yahvah,” “Yahwah,” “Yohwah,” or” Yahowah” for God and “Yeshua” or “Yahoshua” for Jesus. If there is only one non-blasphemous name each for God and Jesus, we better be sure to get it right. Yet adherents of the Sacred Name Movement cannot even agree on the very core of what their movement is supposed to be all about.
The Sacred Name Movement began with an unbiblical premise and has continued by building unbiblical doctrines on top of that premise. Our salvation is not dependent on our ability to properly pronounce God’s name in Hebrew. Our relationship with God is not based on our obedience to the Old Covenant that our Messiah perfectly fulfilled.
If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus?
Question: "If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus?"
Answer: 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.” 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.
What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?
Answer: The debate rages over whether “the rock” on which Christ will build His church is Peter, or Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). In honestly if you want to analyze the meaning you have to know "Scripture interprets Scripture".
The interpretation of the rock is that Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus had never explicitly taught Peter and the other disciples the fullness of His identity, and He recognized that God had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes and revealed to him who Jesus really was. His confession of Christ as Messiah poured forth from him, a heartfelt declaration of Peter’s personal faith in Jesus. It is this personal faith in Christ which is the hallmark of the true Christian. Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. Peter expresses this in 1 Peter 2:4 when he addressed the believers who had been dispersed around the ancient world: “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
At this point, Jesus declares that God had revealed this truth to Peter. The word for “Peter,” Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house. Peter himself uses the same imagery in his first epistle: the church is built of numerous small petros “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5) who, like Peter, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and those confessions of faith are the bedrock of the church.
In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).
The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter’s being the rock is not a valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).