Featured No other name under heaven

In Acts 4 Peter states that there is no other name under heaven in which a person can be saved.

Now this thread is NOT about how one gets saved. Rather, this thread is an attempt at exploring what is meant by the "name under heaven" part of the statement.

Some declare that one must actually use the name, Jesus, or some translation. Yet, the name was translated "Joshua," also. Does that count?

How far does one take this statement used by Peter.

The passage goes on to clarify exactly who Peter was talking about as to where He lived and what was done to Him. If one doesn't know or use the name, but comprehends and believes that the messiah has come and salvation is in that messiah (death, burial, and resurrection of the messiah) "has the name under heaven" then accomplished?

What importance do you place upon the name as significant.

For example, the name of the Lord (Jehovah) was first recorded as to be called upon as early as Genesis 4:1. Is Jehovah (the name of the Lord) which is quoted by the 1 Kings and Psalms, and referred to in Romans, sufficient?

Thoughts?

 

By the sentence, “There are variants of pronunciation,” is that making the actual name being spoken and known as significant to the salvation?

What is meant in your use of “a living faith?”

How is a “living faith” different from that faith residing as a common faith in all?

 

I agree, however if the actual name is so unimportant as to not be recorded appropriately in the Scriptures, then why is it recorded that at that name every knee shall bow?

And, should it not be important to know such a name that one not bow to other then who bears the name?

 

Asl, would show one touching the alternate palms of the hands with the middle finger.

Sign for JESUS

 

From some of the responses, it would seem that the actual name (Jesus) is not the focus, but what that name is associated as far as the actual person and character as the Christ (the anointed one) and Lord (ruler).

So, to branch a bit on the topic, is it possible for one to believe the association without being able to place a figurative name to that association and it be endorsed by God as salvation?

How far does one take the actual name as important in this aspect of salvation?

For example: A person presents the gospel, that which we would all acknowledge as important and Biblical to all aspects of the presentation. Yet, that person does not present the name Jesus, but presents the name Joshua. Have they presented the truth? What if they used the title rather then the name, "King of Kings," have they presented the truth?

Again, how far does one take the actual name as important in this aspect of salvation?

 

Jerome,
Isn't the word "name" also "reputation, character, authority..." in the Greek?

And isn't Jesus a transliteration from the latin Jehoshua shortened to Joshua, which means in Hebrew "Y(J)ehoshua saves?"

 

In the example, I was taking it more from one presenting not from one finding, however, I suppose that the opening statement of the post suggests such a scenario as you present?

Can one with validity present the gospel in such a manner?

Is it important that one actually use the correct name and just what might that name be if it is necessary to use?

To use your own presentation above, would such a presentation be sufficient?

 

Perhaps it is the inability to speak and having washed up as a mute, upon meeting those who are of a different language with no understanding of Western culture must be presented the Gospel.

As one who holds the Doctrines of Grace, it would be a matter of God's providence and appointment, and such a commission given that the mute must share what he knows of the Grace of God.

What is important in the name that would limit, hinder, prevent the Gospel and salvation should the name, Jesus, not be included?

Could that name be missing from the presentation and it still be the Gospel?