Expert: Tom Smith - 1/12/2007

Question
Hi Tom! A friend of mine recently posed the following to me and I told him I would try to find answers! Thank You ! Ron

1: In John 17 vrs 26 Jesus states, "and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known;" if part of Jesus' mission was to proclaim the Name of God, why is it missing from the New Testament and why has it been covered up by LORD in the old testament which was a Jewish superstition?

2: If there is no other name given to men where by they must be saved why do we use the name Jesus which at worst means 'son of Zeus' and at best is is a variation of a minor greek deity Ious? The English transliteration of Yahoshua would be Joshua, so why don't we call him that instead?

3: At best, the protestant churches are nothing more than reformed Catholicism. The Catholic church is inundated with paganism and many of the pagan traditions have been transferred into the protestant church. When is the church going to purify itself from the Babylonian traditions it inherited?

Answer
Ron,

I have heard many of these questions before. There are entire databases on Internet with all sorts of these types of questions. Let me see if I can help answer these ones:

QUESTION #1: In John 17 vrs 26 Jesus states, "and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known;" if part of Jesus' mission was to proclaim the Name of God, why is it missing from the New Testament and why has it been covered up by LORD in the old testament which was a Jewish superstition?

ANSWER: It is not missing from the NT:

Acts 4:10-12
10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'  12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
NKJV

Further, just before the passage that he quoted, Jesus says:

John 17:6
6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world.
NKJV

So Jesus is the manifestation of the name of God. It is by proclaiming the gospel of salvation that Jesus is proclaiming the name of God, the name through whom all people must be saved - the only name through whom we can be saved.

What those who bring up this question frequently miss or usually deny is the trinity, and thus they fail to realize that Jesus is God.

QUESTION #2: If there is no other name given to men where by they must be saved why do we use the name Jesus which at worst means 'son of Zeus' and at best is is a variation of a minor greek deity Ious? The English transliteration of Yahoshua would be Joshua, so why don't we call him that instead?

ANSWER: This is an old and false claim.

The name of Jesus as given in the original Hebrew is Yesha or Yeshua, not Yahosha. Thus, neither is the name Joshua, though it comes from a related root. Using the same approach that he took to come up with Joshua from Yahosha, we would get Jesua from Yesha, which is not far off from Jesus. Not perfect, but no translation ever is.

What is also important, and relates to his previous question, is that the name Yeshua is found throughout the OT, and is usually translated as "salvation", thus was born, and they were told to name Him Jesus, it was a proclamation of the name - Salvation!

Matt 1:21
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."
NKJV

As for the source of the name in Greek, it is Iesous, which, according to Strong's Concordance did not come from "Son of Zeus" but rather was a variant from the Hebrew word, Yehowshuwa or Yehowshu which means Jehovah-saved. The same root from which Joshua is derived. Ultimately, what is important is not whether we have a perfect transliteration of the name, but rather what is important is that we know Him.

If your friend would like to use the proper hebrew name, then if He prefers to use Yeshua, I cannot see why there would be a problem - most Jews I suspect would know who he was talking about.

QUESTION #3: At best, the protestant churches are nothing more than reformed Catholicism. The Catholic church is inundated with paganism and many of the pagan traditions have been transferred into the protestant church. When is the church going to purify itself from the Babylonian traditions it inherited?

ANSWER: I don't know where to start with this one. To be honest, I could probably write a small book in refuting this one, but I will try to keep it short, and if you wish to ask follow-up questions regarding any areas where you feel that additional clarity is required, please do so.

First thing that he needs to understand is that there is no denomination called "Protestantism". Roman Catholicism is a single denomination, but Protestantism is not. Therefore to make a blanket statement about "protestant" churches is a false generalization right from the start.

That being said, there is some truth in that what are commonly understood to be protestant churches did break off from the Roman Catholic church, but to say that because those who wished to be free to follow the Bible are into nothing more than reformed Catholicism because of that would be to suggest that a person who gives up drugs remains nothing more than a reformed drug addict because of where he came from. That is not fair nor accurate.

Now, he does have a point in that many churches do indeed have still some remnants of the Catholic church, but there is no need to change everything for the sake of change. For example, the fact that many churches have choirs may have come from Catholicism. Does that make choirs bad? No. So we need to be discerning on these points. Some things are critical with respect to doctrine, other things are just style.

Is the Catholic Church even wrong on all doctrine? No. So the fact that some things may remain common is not a reason to denounce the non-Catholic Churches.

I would make is that he is right if he is saying that the focus of our focus would be mis-placed if our focus was any denomination. Our focus must be on God and the truth which was revealed in His word, not any organization/denomination. All denominations can be wrong, so our focus is not on the building or the organization of which we are a member, but rather the one membership that matters is membership in the body of Christ, the one and only true church.

Bottom line. I do not want to be defined by what what I am not, but rather what I am. A follower of Jesus Christ, a follower of the word of God, and a person who desires to be constantly growing in the truth of God's word each day.