The Biblical fact remains that the One True Church is called "Church of Christ" PART 2

A CATHOLIC DEFENDER’S FUTILE ATTEMPT OF INSISTING THAT THE WORD “CHRIST” IS NOT A NAME”

Answering Catholic Defender’s Response in

our article “‘Christ’ is not a name?”

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 is what he said:

“After I read the article, I think a common person would be easily convinced about his article. But for me, I can point out a lot of errors in his arguments. So let's find it out first in a simple reference. What is "Christ?"

“Christ (/kraɪst/; Ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning "anointed") is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ) and the Syriacܡܫܝܚܐ (M'shiha), the Messiah, and is used as a title for Jesus in the New Testament.” (Zanzig, Thomas (2000). Jesus of history, Christ of faith. p. 33.)

After quoting this book, he boastfully concluded:

“INC BLOGGER HAVE JUST BEEN REFUTED IN ONE BLOW!!!”

Answered:

(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.

(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)

(C) HE NEVER GIVEN ANY VERSE OF THE BIBLE THAT SAYS “CHRIST IS NOT A NAME.” THUS, THE BIBLE DOESN’T SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.

(2) He admitted that what he is saying (that “Christ is not a name”) is not in Matthew 1:21, the only verse he presented for his claim:

In his comment that we answered in the article “Christ is not a name?” he gave Matthew 1:21 as his biblical proof for his claim. This was his comment:

“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

In the article “Christ is not a name?” we pointed out that nowhere in the verse he presented that says “Christ is an office, not name,”  “Christ’s name was Jesus,” and that “NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus.” However, he deleted our argument next to this point. Let us quote in our article our whole answer regarding his used of Matthew 1:21:

“THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO ANSWERS: Your statement is based on opinion and not on facts written in the Bible. The used of Matthew 1:21 as a proof that “Christ is an office, not (a) name,”  “Christ’s name was Jesus,” and that “NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus” is ERRONEOUS indeed because the said verse doesn’t say so:

“She will have a son, and you will name him Jesus--because he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21 TEV)

“The angel said to Joseph that “She (Mary) will have a son, and you will NAME HIM JESUS…” Nowhere in the verse that says “Christ is an office, not name,”  “Christ’s name was Jesus,” and that “NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus.” It’s non sequitur.

“The verse indeed said “She will have a son, and you will name him Jesus.” But it doesn’t follow that “Christ is an office, not name,”  “Christ’s name was Jesus,” and that “NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus.”

THUS, 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 FOLLOW THAT “CHRIST IS NOT A NAME.” Clearly, this Catholic Defender failed to answer this point. Instead of answering this point, this is what he said:

“The angel said to Joseph that “She (Mary) will have a son, and you will NAME HIM JESUS…” Nowhere in the verse that says “Christ is an office, not name,”  “Christ’s name was Jesus,” and that “NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus.” It’s non sequitur.
Obviously, he is looking for something that cannot be found there. This verse only implies that name was given to the Son of God was Jesus. And if the Son of God was named "Jesus" then it only means the "no other name" refers to Jesus.”

Please take note of the following:

(a) He obviously deleted our argument stating, “The verse indeed said ‘She will have a son, and you will name him Jesus.’ But it doesn’t follow that ‘Christ is an office, not name,’  ‘Christ’s name was Jesus,’ and that ‘NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus.’ Thus, he trully avoided this argument, so it is not wrong to say that he failed to answer this argument.

(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.

(C) After his admission of his error, he tried to make an escape from this embarrassment. Still referring to Matthew 1:21, he stated: “This verse only implies that name was given to the Son of God was Jesus. And if the Son of God was named "Jesus" then it only means the "no other name" refers to Jesus.”

(3) The fallacy of Catholic Defenders argument stating “If the Son of God was named ‘Jesus’ then it only means the ‘no other name’ refers to Jesus”

This is again a manifestation of gross ignorance of the Bible. Let us first quote the verse he presented for this claim, Mattheww 1:21, then we compare it with Acts 4:12:

“And she will bring forth a Son, and YOU SHALL CALL HIS NAME JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21 NKJV, emphasis mine)

Please take note that the verse explicitly stated “YOU SHALL CALL HIS NAME JESUS.” According to the verse, it was Joseph “who shall call His name Jesus.” Now let us quote Acts 4:12 and let us see what the Bible says about the “no other name” mentioned in this verse:

“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)

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.”

(4) He obviously avoided Luke 2:21

This verse (Luke 2:21) was obviously avoided for it crushed his point. Remember his argument goes like this: “Christ is not a name; Jesus is the name of Christ, thus the ‘no other name’ in Acts 4:12 is Jesus.” Why he deliberately avoided this verse? Remember first that the “name” mentioned in Acts 4:12 is the “name” given by God. How about the name “Jesus”? This is what is written in Luke 2:21, the verse  that this Catholic Defender avoided:

“On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, THE NAME THE ANGEL HAD GIVEN HIM before he had been conceived.” (Luke 2:21 NIV, emphasis mine)

Again, take note: If the “name” mentioned in Acts 4:12 is given by God, and the name “Jesus” according to Luke 2:21 was “THE NAME THE ANGEL HAD GIVEN HIM before he had been conceived,” this will make the Angel Gabriel the God that given the “no other name” in Acts 4:12. We now know why this Catholic Defender cowardly avoided the verse.

(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.

(6) Which is which?

Is this Catholic Defender in a great confusion? Did he suffered from “brain-bleeding” while trying to understand this Greek word “legomenos”? In the beginning of his discussion of this Greek word he said:

“This INC member trying to insist that "Christ" is a name, because of a statement of a verse "named Christ". He even appeal to use the Greek text, but does it support his assertion? What makes YLT corrrect than the NIV? What is the difference between "called" and "named"?”

His statement “What is the difference between ‘called’ and ‘named’?” gives impication that his position is that “called” and “named” are different words and this what he is going to prove. But after his presentation, this is what he said:

“The greek text abandoned the assertion of this INC member. The greek word Legomenos is defined both "named" and "called".”

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’.”

This is an indirect admission that we are right in saying that Christ is both a “title” and a “name” – Jesus is both “called” and “named” Christ.  Wait! But this Catholic Defender’s position is that Christ is only a title and not a name? Mr. Catholic Defender, which is which?

(7) “Legomenos” is Different from “Legomenon”?

As a further manifestation that he was confused (or that his brain bleeded, I don’t know) in trying to explain the Greek word “legomenos,” he concluded:

“Everyone can see that legomenos is different from legómenon…”

Take note, in his statement quoted above, he explicitly said “legomenos” is different rom “legomenon.” Actually his presentation did not give a subtantive definition of “legomenos” and “legomenon” but showed where these two Greek words were used or where in occured in the New Testament. After this presentation, he concluded:  

“As we can see it, they have more like have the same DEFINITION and they are not solely defined as "named" but both "called" and "named". See how pointless his arguments?”

Hahh???? In his first statement, he said, “Everyone can see that legomenos is different from legómenon…” After looking the Greek text he stated, “As we can see it, they have more like have the same DEFINITION.” Which is which Mr. Catholic Defender?

Referring both to the “legomenos” and “legomenon” he further said “…they are not solely defined as "named" but both "called" and "named". In this statement of his, he agreed that “logemos” and “legomenon” are also defined as both “called” and “named” just “not solely defined.” TAKE A NOTE OF HIS FURTHER STATEMENT:

“Granting that the word translation "named" is the correct one, he fail to recognized the uses of the word "named". Is it in favor of his assertion? Let's check the dictionary”

His words “Granting that the word translation ‘named’ is the correct one” implied that for him, “named” is a wrong translation. But he earlier said, “As we can see it, they have more like have the same DEFINITION and they are not solely defined as "named" but both "called" and "named". Is Biblical Greek that difficult to make him that dizzy and confused? Our students in Biblical Greek in the College of Evangelical Ministry don’t find this subject that difficult. They even enjoyed this subject.

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

“The phrase ‘a man named Matthew’ means that this man is called in the name “Matthew.” It is not wrong to conclude that this phrase proves that ‘Matthew’ is a name. The Bible also explicitly said, ‘Jesus, who is NAMED Christ.’ Based on this fact, it is also not wrong to conclude that this man, Jesus, is also called in the name “Christ.”

This Catholic Defender failed to refute the validity of this 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.”

(9) “Christ is not a name” based on grammar?

Using the reference we qouted above, this is his conclusion:

So the verse he used earlier was actually in reference to the name "Jesus" and his office "Christ"

However, he failed to realized how the word “name” was used as to designate for some duty or office; nominate or appoint” and that it was not the case in the verses of the Bible that he used. Let us again quote the definition of the word “name” given by an online dictionary this Catholic Defender used:

“name

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

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

“I have named you for the position.”

Take note of the example given by this reference, “I have NAMED you FOR THE position.” But, this is not the case of Matthew 1:16. The verse said:

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

The verse said, “Jesus who is named Christ.” The verse did not said “Jesus who is named for the position Christ.” Take note of the word “for” and the article “the.” In the example given by the online dictionary that this Catholic Defender used, “I have named you for the position,” take off the words “for” and “the” and this will be the result, “I have named you position.” Thus, Matthew 1:16 still has the same case as Matthew 9:9:

“As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he arose and followed Him.” (Matthew 9:9 NKJV)

This continuously proves the validity of our argument that follows:

“The phrase ‘a man named Matthew’ means that this man is called in the name “Matthew.” It is not wrong to conclude that this phrase proves that ‘Matthew’ is a name. The Bible also explicitly said, ‘Jesus, who is NAMED Christ.’ Based on this fact, it is also not wrong to conclude that this man, Jesus, is also called in the name “Christ.”

Thus, the “argument” used by this Catholic Defender backfired on him. Definition and grammar further proves the validity of our argument, and do not support his claim.

(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?

They know how important the “name” mentioned in Acts 4:12. They also knew that if this name is the name “Christ,” thus, the name “Church of Christ” greatly proves that the Iglsia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) is the one true Church that will be saved. However, their attempts to counter this are futile. Granting that they have proven that the name mentioned in Acts 4:12 is the name “Jesus,” but still, this doesn’t prove that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that will be saved because it is a fact that they are not called “Church of Jesus.”

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.

CONCLUSION

Let us summarized our main points:

(1) This Catholic Defender failed to present substantive biblical evidence to support his claim that “Christ is an office, not name,”  “Christ’s name was Jesus,” and that “NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus.” THE BIBLE DOESN’T SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.

(2) In proving that “Christ is not a name” the evidence he presented is a reference book. However, this reference book doesn’t support his claim. It doesn’t answer the issue that he himself raised, that “Christ is not a name.” The reference book he gave states that “Christ is a title,” but who says that “Christ is not a title”? There is no question about this. If we are going to use reference books (which is not the authority to answer the issue if the word “Christ” is a name or not a name”), there are also numerous books that say “Christ is a name.” Here the Catholic Defender was defeated in his own game.

(3) The only biblical verse he presented (Matthew 1:21) is not substantive or relevant in the issue because it doesn’t support his claim. He even admitted that his claim “Christ is an office, not name,”  “Christ’s name was Jesus,” and that “NO OTHER NAME refers to Jesus” are not in the verse.

(4) Matthew 1:21 indeed mentioned “you will name him Jesus” but it doesn’t follows that “Christ is not a name.”

(5) His interpretation of the Matthew 1:21 and it’s used to support his claim that the “name” mentioned in Acts 4:12 is the name “Jesus” and not “Christ” contradicts what are written in Matthew 1:21 itself  and Acts 4:12. His claim that the “name” mentioned in Acts 4:12 is the name “Jesus” will result in gross error. Mathew 1:21 says “YOU (JOSEPH) SHALL CALL HIS NAME JESUS” while the name mentioned in Acts 4:12 is THE NAME GIVEN BY GOD in which we will be saved.

(6) He deliberately and probably also cowardly avoided Luke 2:21 that says “THE NAME THE ANGEL HAD GIVEN HIM before he had been conceived” while the name in Acts 4:12 is THE NAME GIVEN BY GOD in which we will be saved.

(7) We never mentioned that NIV’s translation of Matthew 1:16 is wrong. The tranlation of NIV (that used the word “called”) and YLT (that used the word “named”) of Matthew 1:16 are both correct. Our point is, the Greek word “legomenos” is both defined as “called” and “named,” thus the phrase “called Christ” as NIV’s rendering is also the same as “named Christ.” This only proves that NIV’s rendering of  “Jesus who is called Christ” also proves that the word “Christ” is indeed a name.

(8) The Greek words “legomenos” and “legomenon” are the same that both can be translated as “called” or “named.” Thus, further proves that the word Christ is both “title” and “name.”

(9) The used of Matthew 1:16 of the word “named” is the same as the used of Matthew 9:9. Thus, The phrase ‘a man named Matthew’ means that this man is called in the name “Matthew.” It is not wrong to conclude that this phrase proves that ‘Matthew’ is a name. The Bible also explicitly said, ‘Jesus, who is NAMED Christ.’ Based on this fact, it is also not wrong to conclude that this man, Jesus, is also called in the name “Christ.

(10) using the Catholic Defenders’ own game, both definition and grammar proves that “Christ” is also a name.

THUS, THIS CATHOLIC DEFENDER MADE A FAILED AND FUTILE ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT THE NAME “CHRIST” IS NOT A NAME. WHAT MAKES HIS ATTEMPT MORE FUTILE IS THE FACT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT CALLED IN THE NAME “CHRIST” NOR “JESUS.”

If you missed the article

“The One True Church has no Official Name?”

Please click this link:

http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com/2015/01/church-of-christ-is-official-name-of.html

and also, if you missed the article

“ ‘Christ’ Is Not A Name?”

Please click this link:

http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-biblical-fact-remains-that-one-true.html