Is Christ a Name? : In response to an unofficial INC blog (part 2)

This would be my second response to the the blogger who was whipped with the truth ""Christ" is not a name". To make it clear to everyone, this started when I commented on one of the article asserting about the church name. See my comment:

Riel Lopez “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV, emphasis mine) 

---= I was reminded by someone that the word "Christ" is an office, not name. Christ's name was Jesus. "NO OTHER NAME" refers to Jesus.
"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. ." Matt 1:21

To make it clear to everyone, this argument can be break down to as follows:

1. "Christ" is not a name, but a title.

2. The name  which was given to the Son of God is Jesus.

3. Therefore, the "no other name" under the heaven given among men by which we must be saved is the name "JESUS".

It is a big issue for the INC blogger because it would turn out that they misused Acts 4:12 in support to their argument for the name of the church which is the CHURCH OF CHRIST. And since, the name is "Jesus", they can no longer used ACTS 4:12 for their name is not "Church of Jesus". But did the INC blogger successfully proved that "Christ is a name"? Let us now find it out.

1. THE PICK AND THROW

The INC blogger wrote the following:

THE SAME CATHOLIC Defender again made an attempt to prove that the word “Christ” is not a name. He made a response in our article “‘Christ’ is not a name?” However, his response further manifested his gross ignorance of the teachings written in the Bible. Let us discussed one-by-one his responses:

(1) He proved that “Christ is not a name through a reference book”:

You heard it right! Only through a reference book, and not through a verse of the Bible. No wonder because it iw q fqct thqt NOWhERE IN THE BIBLE HE CAN FIND A VERSE SAYING “CHRIST IS NOT A NAME.”

 This INC blogger forgot how they proved their existence. Is it not from a reference book, written by our priest that your proved how Philippines became the "Far East"? Without a reference book, do you think you can prove the existence of your church? Did you just throw away the usage of reference book in support to your Biblical argument ? See? your getting a taste of your own medicine.

(a) This is a reference book (the Bible is our authority and these books are only references), and this book states “Christ…and is used as a title for Jesus in the New Testament.” However, the issue is not if the word “Christ” is a title or not. We never said that it is not a “title”, but our position is that it’s also a “name”. THE ISSUE IS JUST WHAT HE SAID “CHRIST IS NOT A NAME.” And the reference book he quoted doesn’t support his claim.

See how this INC blogger lied, Bible is their only authority? but their "Far East" doctrine clings so much on history book and references as if they won't exist without these references. Again, you're tasting your own medicine.

Proving that "Christ is a title" should end the argument and , but this INC blogger is blinded to see what follows if "Christ a title" has been asserted and good thing about it, he even agreed that saying:

We never said that it is not a “title”, but our position is that it’s also a “name”

Since we know that "Christ" is a title, it follows that it is not his name. What follows is, in Acts 4:12 "no other name" must now refers to "Jesus" knowing that "Christ is a title" not a name.

A person may be called or named "President" but it is not his name, it is his title. 

2. The Fallback

After whipped by the truth, this INC blogger gave in saying that Christ is a title and also a name. This INC member forgot the main point of this argumentation lies in Acts 4:12.

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

 (b) His proof is a reference book? So, let us give him a taste of his own medicine. When it comes to reference books, there are numerous books we can read which state that the word “Christ” is a “name”:
Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary:
“CHRIST (anointed one) - A NAME FOR JESUS which showed that He was the long-awaited king and deliverer. For centuries the Jewish people had looked for a prophesied Messiah, a deliverer who would usher in a kingdom of peace and prosperity (Ps 110; Isa 32:1-8; Amos 9:13). Jesus was clearly identified as this Messiah in Peter's great confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16).” (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, s.v. “Christ” wmphasis mine)

Again, Mr. INC blogger you forgot the main point of this argumentation. After I have proven that Christ is a title using a reference book, you presented another reference book showing that "Christ" is a name for Jesus. Mr. INC blogger, see how it will become if Christ is a name and Jesus is a name as what you asserted, that would be“CHRIST (anointed one) - A NAME FOR  A NAME.
Jesus is the name of the Son of God, if you give a name to a person that has already a name, that would a name for his title and it is totally different from the personal name. And remember, Acts 4:12 was not talking about the title.


3. "That's your opinion. I can't find the word in the Bible"

OUR POINT IS (1) NOWHERE IN THE VERSE HE PRESENTED THAT SAYS “CHRIST IS NOT A NAME”; AND (2) MATTHEW 1:21 INDEED MENTIONED “YOU WILL NAME HIM JESUS” BUT IT DOESN’T FOLLOWS THAT “CHRIST IS NOT A NAME.” Clearly, this Catholic Defender failed to answer this point. 

The Ventilacion syndrome have reached to this INC blogger, which is the usage of the word "opinion" to their opponent then suddenly, will look for the exact words that the INC opponent have been trying to prove. This is what happen if the INC ministers is struggling and is about to be defeated in argumentation, he throws away his logical abilities to understand premises. THE VENTILACION SYNDROME.


4. RIP LOGIC

(b) Take note of his comment, “Obviously, he is looking for something that CANNOT BE FOUND THERE.” HE ADMITTED THAT HIS POINT SAYING “CHRIST IS NOT A NAME” IS NOT IN THE VERSE (MATTHEW 1:21), BUT REMEMBER, THIS IS THE VERSE HE PRESENTED TO PROVE HIS POINT. Thus, his statement that “Obviously, he is looking for something that cannot be found there” IS NOT AN ANSWER TO MY POINT, BUT AN ADMISSION OF HIS ERROR IN HIS USED OF MATTHEW 1:21 AND AN ADMISSION THAT WE ARE RIGHT IN SAYING THAT THIS VERSE HE PRESENTED DOESN’T SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.

INC minister and members will bury their logic when Catholic arguments are presented. Is it not obvious? After proving that Jesus is the name of the Son of God, that follows that Acts 4:12 was referring to "Jesus". As for the analogy, 

If my hand is capable handing one ball,and I am now handing a blue ball,Then it means, the only one ball that I am holding is the blue ball. 

What would be the logical conclusion? 

The logical conclusion would be I am not handing a red ball. 

But if we will let this INC blogger answer the for the logical conclusion, he would say "It never says that he is not handling a Red Ball".

5. Recognizing the sender

Obviously, it was the Lord God who gave the “no other name” mentioned here in Acts 4:12 and NOT JOSEPH. Thus, If this Catholic Defender will insist that the name “Jesus” is the “no other name” mentioned in Acts 4:12, it will result in a gross error because: 

If the name “Jesus” is the “no other name” that God gave to men mentioned in Acts 4:12; and according to Matthew 1:21 it was Joseph who called His name “Jesus”; thus, Joseph is God? 

THUS, THE BIBLICAL FACTS REMAIN THAT (1) THE NAME MENTIONED IN ACTS 4:12 IS GIVEN BY GOD; AND (2)  AND MATTHEW 1:21 EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT IT WAS JOSEPH WHO CALLED THE SON OF GOD IN THE NAME “JESUS.” THIS SHOWS THAT THIC CATHOLIC DEFENDER IS IN GROSS ERROR IN SAYING And if the Son of God was named "Jesus" then it only means the "no other name" refers to Jesus.”

This INC blogger erroneously concluded that it was Joseph gave the name "Jesus" and since name in Acts 4:12 refers to a name given by God, Thus, Jesus is not the name referred in Acts 4:12.

But that is ultimately wrong, this INC blogger do not recognize the sender. For us to understand, let us quote the verses.

The Birth of Jesus the Messiah Matthew 1: 18 (NLT) This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.19 Joseph, her fiancé, was a good man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement[h] quietly.20 As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus,[i] for he will save his people from their sins.”22 All of this occurred to fulfill the Lord’s message through his prophet: “Look! The virgin will conceive a child!    She will give birth to a son,and they will call him Immanuel,[j]    which means ‘God is with us.’”24 When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

 Note that it was the angel that told Joseph in his dream that the Son of God shall be named Jesus. And in the last verse, it was Joseph who named the child "Jesus". But does it mean the angel or Joseph named the child "Jesus"? No! This INC blogger failed to recognized that it was God who sent the angel and the angel is just a messenger, whatever the angel told to Joseph it was from God, therefore it was God who named the child "Jesus". Thus, the name which Acts 4:12 refers to is the name "Jesus" which was given by God.

6. TOTAL DENIAL

(5) Did we disregard NIV’s translation of Matthew 1:16?
Regarding our discussion of Matthew 1:16, this Catholic Defender claimed:
“See how useless his assertion was. Trying to disregard the NIV which uses the word "called" and praising YLT because it uses the word "named" when the fact is greek word translates both "called" and "named.” 

Who disregarded NIV’s translation? This shows that this Catholic Defender failed to undersatnd the point (he is barking on the wrong tree). Regarding the discussion on Matthew 1:16, our article “Christ is not a name?” This is what we can read:
“This shows gross ignorance of the Bible. He uses Matthew 1:21 (but as we have seen, he erroneously used the verse), however, he missed the verse just five verses away from it. This is what we can read in Matthew 1:16:
“And Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, WHO IS CALLED CHRIST.” (Matthew 1:16 NIV, emphasis mine)
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) translated Matthew 1:16 as follows:
“And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ.” (Matthew 1:16 YLT)” 

NIV’s translation of Mathhew 1:16 is not disregarded. It was even quoted first. AND NOTHING HERE THAT SAYS THAT “CALLED” IS DIFFERENT FROM “NAMED”! ALSO, NOWHERE IN OUR ARTICLE THAT SAYS “CALLED” (AS NIV’S RENDERING) IS A WRONG TRANSLATION. HE DID NOT GET THE POINT. Obviously, the article implying that the Greek word “legomenos” can be both be translated as “called” and “named,” and it is not wrong to translate the Greek word “legomenos” as “named.” This is our point, thus, this Catholic Defender is barking on the wrong tree.

This INC blogger is taking back what he said, it was such a critical strike to him that I was able to point out his erroneous presentation of argument. Looks like I put him down to the point he is not totally denied his previous argument. See how this INC blogger argued:

“And Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, WHO IS CALLED CHRIST.” (Matthew 1:16 NIV, emphasis mine)

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) translated Matthew 1:16 as follows:

 “And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ.” (Matthew 1:16 YLT)

YLT is right in using the term “named” because the Greek term used here is “legomenos”:

Isn't he compering the two verses and decided that the other one is correct?  Why bring up two verses and decide that YLT is right in usage of a certain name? Especially that you failed to create a distinction between the two because it turns out that that they do not have much difference. Why bring up such a useless argument Mr. INC blogger? Such a waste that you brought up a greek text while made no point at all.

Even elementary students knew that if you asked a question in your discussion like “What is the difference between ‘called’ and ‘named’?” it implies that you are going to give the differences between the two topics in discussion. But, instead, this Catholic Defender did otherwise: “The greek word Legomenos is defined both ‘named’ and ‘called’.”

What a foolish accusation, it was you who tried to make a difference about these words. I am not the one who brought up two translation which uses the word "named" and "called" and decided that the YLT is the correct one.

7. Which is Which?

Mr. INC blogger trying to assert earlier that the YLT is correct in translating the  greek text "legomenon" to the word "named". After that he tried to compare it with  Matt 9:9 which has a text "named" Is it using the same greek word?

It is also the same word used in Matthew 9:9 which also translated as “named”:

 So much for trying to move away from the word "called" having a comparison with a text which doesn't have the same in the first place. He ended up knowing that the definition of greek text has the same definition with the text he is trying to avoid.See how his both statement having a battle:

“And Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, WHO IS CALLED CHRIST.” (Matthew 1:16 NIV, emphasis mine)

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) translated Matthew 1:16 as follows:

 “And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ.” (Matthew 1:16 YLT)

YLT is right in using the term “named” because the Greek term used here is “legomenos”:

VS

Thus, the word both “legomenos” and “legomenon” can be translated both “called” and “named.” This supported the validity of our argument which follows:

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU WIN AGAINST YOURSELF

7.Supporting your argument?

(8) Definition of ‘name” according to Dictionary?

This Catholic Defender tried to prove that “Christ” is not a name through using the dictionary definition of the English word “name.” This is what he stated:

“name

“verb (used with object), named, naming.

“to designate for some duty or office; nominate or appoint:

“I have named you for the position.”

This Catholic Defender did not realized that this definition given by an online dictionary supported our stand and disclaim his. Take note: this Catholic Defender pointed out that “Christ is a title and not a name.” However, the definition of the word “name” that he gave states “to designate for some duty or office.” Thus, based on this definition that he himself gave, a duty or office or as he puts it, the title “Christ,” is also a name. Again, what is his stand? “The word Christ is a title and NOT A NAME.”

This INC blogger do is getting hopeless and desperate, still force to put the same meaning of the word "name" and "named ". It is proven when the word "named" is used as a designation of an office, and it is different to the word "name". When a person will be given a name, and that name is not his office. You were given a name by your parents, tell me, is it your office?


8. Overlooking Obvious (IT IS NOT THERE)

See how this INC blogger overlooking a very obvious thing which he admitted in his earlier argument.

The verse said, “Jesus who is named Christ.” The verse did not said “Jesus who is named for the position Christ.” 

Mr. INC, didn't you admit that that "Christ" is a title? We know that that the title "Christ" is an office. Thus, the text "named" is referring to the position Christ.

(10) Why the effort of proving the “name” mentioned in Acts 4:12 is “Jesus” and not “Christ” if the Catholic Church is not called in either of the two names?

Just to make it clear Mr. INC blogger, this has nothing to do about the name of your church. I did not argue just because you did not use the name "Jesus" therefore, you are not the true church. That is a dumb way to argue. Does it hurt to much now? Looks like you are now complaining. I made it clear already, why proving that Acts 4:12 matter so much, because that would manifest your misuse the verses in the Bible in proving your arguments for your church.

And again, he showed how he misuse the verse

The Catholic Church is not called “Church of Christ” nor “Church of Jesus,” thus, still there is no salvation in the Catholic Church for the Bible said:

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NKJV)

Thus, based on the issue raised by the Catholic Defenders, still the choice is between “Church of Christ” or “Church of Jesus”, and the “Catholic Church” is automatically disqualified in being the Church who will be saved.

First, I have showed you a lot of references from the our Catechism showing that we called the Catholic Church "Church of Christ". So do not play blind.

Second, Acts 4:12 never gave a clue that that the name mentioned in that text must be attached in the name of the church. The name Jesus which was being referred in Acts 4:12 something that we disregard just because we did not attached it in the church. See how we regard the name Jesus in our official teaching, THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

ARTICLE 2

“AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD”

I. Jesus

430 Jesus means in Hebrew: “God saves.” At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission. [18] Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, “will save his people from their sins”. [19] in Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men. 

431 In the history of salvation God was not content to deliver Israel “out of the house of bondage” [20] by bringing them out of Egypt. He also saves them from their sin. Because sin is always an offence against God, only he can forgive it. [21] For this reason Israel, becoming more and more aware of the universality of sin, will no longer be able to seek salvation except by invoking the name of the Redeemer God. [22] 

432 The name “Jesus” signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, [23] so that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” [24] 

433 The name of the Saviour God was invoked only once in the year by the high priest in atonement for the sins of Israel, after he had sprinkled the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies with the sacrificial blood. the mercy seat was the place of God's presence. [25] When St. Paul speaks of Jesus whom “God put forward as an expiation by his blood”, he means that in Christ's humanity “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” [26] 

434 Jesus' Resurrection glorifies the name of the Saviour God, for from that time on it is the name of Jesus that fully manifests the supreme power of the “name which is above every name”. [27] The evil spirits fear his name; in his name his disciples perform miracles, for the Father grants all they ask in this name. [28] 

435 The name of Jesus is at the heart of Christian prayer. All liturgical prayers conclude with the words “through our Lord Jesus Christ”. the Hail Mary reaches its high point in the words “blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” the Eastern prayer of the heart, the Jesus Prayer, says: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Many Christians, such as St. Joan of Arc, have died with the one word “Jesus” on their lips.

We Catholics use the true name that  was  given among men by which we must be saved and that is "Jesus" as how it is suppose to be used.


P.S Typo err may be found. Gonna check it later