Significance of Names and Persons
 

This is part of an old thread at NFCF...unfortunately I don't remember exactly what I posted

Here is another interesting thing I posted at the old and now defunct NFCF...."names" is used in scriptures to show number of persons

Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about a hundred and twenty,)

A.T. Robertson says
Multitude of persons (ochlos onomatōn). Literally, multitude of names. This Hebraistic use of onoma = person occurs in the lxx (Numbers 1:2; 18:20; 3:40, 43; 26:53) and in Rev_3:4; Rev_11:13.

I am just wondering if perhaps if a Trinity is intended why not say "names" in places like Matt 28:19

I'm not convinced that there is any real significance in the phrase "the number of the names" in Acts 1:15. It appears to be more along the lines of "there were x number of names listed on the membership roll." In Matthew 28:19, the use of "name" seems to suggest authority and not personage, e.g. "stop in the name of the law" is simply a command to stop and provides the authority to issue the command (the authority being "the law").

I have not come across any modern Trinitarian who can adequately explain how the Bible "proves" that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, to quote some of their statements of faith, "co-equal, co-eternal divine persons."

You are mostly correct, but still number of names are used to present how many persons were present. This example is used elsewhere too. Name represents the person too and from whom that authority is derived

But we must not mix the two together. In the passage you quoted from Acts "names" appears to be a stand-in for "persons" or "people." In Matthew 28:19, "name" appears to be strictly limited to "authority" or "power."

Strictly limited? How?

In the context sure. But generally speaking people or persons have names. Names represent persons. The name of Jesus represents Him as well as it represents His authority given to him.

In Matthew 28 Jesus starts off with "All power in heaven and earth is given to me...THEREFORE" and what follows the therefore is the part about baptising in the name.

When He was born it was said "shall call HIS name Jesus for HE shall save HIS people from their sins"...

The only reason in Acts they could use names to count persons is because of that principle....persons have names and we give names to persons. The name represents that person, who they are. And in the case of Jesus it represents what he is (savior) and that name represents the authority given to Him personally

Context is all that matters.

But notice it says that because all power (which one could say also includes authority) has been given to Jesus, we are to baptize in that power and/or authority. It has nothing with saying the name "Jesus" like some magical incantation as some people insist.

Yes, and the Aramaic form of that name is essentially the same as the name of Moses' successor following the Exodus: Yehoshua or (to use the English equivalent) Joshua.

But there is nothing particularly special about the fact that Luke just happened to refer to the names to count persons any more than there is something particularly special about referring to people as "souls" (as in "the ship sank and all the souls onboard were lost").

Chan,

There is no power or authority without using the name. If you are an ambassador what good is it to go to the head of another country and say I have power and authority unless you say the NAME of the one who you represent and who sent you?

So, what is the "name" of the law by which authority a police officer commands a fleeing criminal to stop? God commanded the Old Testament prophets to speak but they didn't go around constantly using God's name in their speaking.

More often than not if they represented God to someone else then the prophets did speak in the name of the Lord: Thus saith the LORD is found in over 441 places in the OT in the KJV.

The name of the law is a poor example because it does not represent a person or God.

Nobody said anything about a need to utter a name. The issue is whether or not name represents a person and clearly since the authority is given TO him and name is used in the context of that authority then thats how I see it

Right....but it was still HIS name.

In the OT God speaks of the temple saying he would put his name there...isn't that where the priest met the presence of the Lord?

It would show a precedent I believe that bible writters can say "name" and be refering to the person who has that name.

I know YOU didn't specifically say there was the need to utter a name. The fact of the matter is, though, that many oneness folks do, in fact, believe that a name must be uttered. Mizpeh, for example, said "There is no power or authority without using the name."The point I was making was that there was nothing particularly special about the actual name itself. The name itself does not have magical powers when it is uttered.Yes, that is where the priest entered into the Lord's presence.A name is nothing more than a label that is attached to an individual person. Again, there is nothing special about the fact that Luke said "the number of the names."

But just because they said "Thus saith the Lord" frequently, that does not mean they spoke His NAME - particularly given that the NAME was considered so sacred to the Jews that they often substituted adonai for it.

RIGHT! Names in the bible represent PERSONS. This is how Luke can tell us how many PERSONS were present by counting the number of names.

Okay, so, remind me again of what your point was in all of this. It doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to me that names refer to individual people.

lol...it's just one way the bible can express the number of persons present. Perhaps someone could have done the same thing with the Trinity if there was such a thing....you know like John could have said "there are three He's" because he certian did not say "there are three hypostatis"

Maybe Jesus could have said "in the names of the Father, son and Holy Ghost" if the intention was to express three persons

Is there a site you know of where I can read about how the Jews substituted the name of the Lord? Because the Bible teaches in the OT to call upon His name. 1 Chron 16:8, Psalm 99:6, Psalm 105:1, Isaiah 12:4.

How is it possible for the name of the Lord to be a strong tower, and for the righteous to run into that name for refuge, if you don't call upon the name to call to attention the One who answers to that name? I don't believe the name of the Lord is magic. The power of the name of Jesus is the One who answers to that name, not the name itself.

Everywhere you see LORD it IS the name. They must have called on that name. It was a later superstition to say HaShem or write "Adonia" instead of the name

This just occurred to me...when Jesus taught to pray he said "Our Father...hallowed be your name"...

Is that not another way of saying "Give God the Glory" or "Give to Him the Glory due to Him"? When we praise His name are we not praising Him personally?

Is the name, "Father", the name we are hallowing? Or is the name of the Father, Jesus, and the name we are to reverence is the name of Jesus?

Well that is another issue from this. I had a topic like that on NFCF.

Here though how can we honor His name and that be honorable to Him unless Honoring His name refers to honoring Him personally?

Re: Significance of Names and Persons
 

Matt. 28:19 "...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," means different things to different people, mainly because of semantics. Trinitarians say there is only One God, triune, with 3 "persons" in the One Godhead. Oneness Apostolics say there is only One God, but there are 3 "manifestations" in the One Godhead. It's odd that the writer of the "Foreward" in the UPCI Ministers' Manual writes, "In the days of Tertullian (A.D. 207)...the gifts and manifestations of theApostolic church were much in evidence as the revival spirit swept over the country." (p.23) Tertullian was the first person recorded to use the word "trinity" and also to speak of "Persons" in the Godhead. He's interesting. Google him and see that he was "hard" and "harsh" in defense of the developing Roman Catholic Church, persecuting Jewish Christians for playing sofars, and celebrating feast days, even though they were worshipping as devoted Christians. He made it his life's work to punish "heretics"--that is, all who didn't belong to his brand of Christianity. (That would have been you and me.) Think about it. For your own sake, for your children's sake, for God's sake, do some research. Think about what you're ascribing to, and stop lightly discussing things you know little about. As to whether Matt. 28:19 means one or three names, it could mean three. It reads in the Name of the Father *and* of the Son *and* of the Holy Spirit." That could mean three different Names. Yaweh is the Hebrew Name of the Father, Jesus is the Name of the Son. Now we have a problem. What is the Name of the Holy Spirit? The argument over baptismal formulas makes as much sense as the ancient argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Get over yourselves. Go, preach Christ and Him crucified. Stop driving people away with nonsense and attract them to the One True God, by being learned, sensible, loving, and truthful. Lead by example, exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. People will come to you. Will you be ready to show yourself a workman that needs not to be ashamed, as Paul instructed Timothy? Or will you be too busy defending doctrines you have not studied for yourselves?