- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:26) Marty said: Quote I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
Marty,Prove that the Acts narratives aren't corrupt. Peter had to be corrected on a couple of things both by God and by Paul. So maybe Peter was in error in using the “in the name of Jesus” formula. Hey, if you're going to cast doubt on the authenticity of certain portions of the scripture, then let's go all the way my man.
Jack
Hi Jack:The Apostle Paul also baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Paul baptized only a few Jews. Baptism was not for the Gentiles.http://myredeemer.org/foundation/baptism/paul.shtml
Paul himself was not baptized with water. He was baptized in the house of Ananias by standing up and putting off his sins.
http://www.biblestudying.net/baptism6.html
Jesus did not command water baptism. He never taught a doctrine of water baptism before the Great Commission. Why would He do so at the end?
Water baptism along with all other external regulations was on its way out by the time the book of Hebrews was written about ad68. (Hebrews 6:1-3; 9:6-10).
Jack
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:56) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,05:30) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:25) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:30) Marty cited the Didache: Quote Chapter Seven And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
You rightly show the silliness of men for making Matthew 28:19 about water baptism when it is not.Jack
Careful Jack you might get in trouble with your fellow Trinitarians.Love in Christ,
Marty
Get serious with me Marty or be quiet. I am NOT Catholic. I am a Protestant and many of us deny water baptism.Jack
Hi Jack:Is Jesus your Lord? This is what he said:
Quote Matthew 3:13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And the Apostle Peter said this:
Quote Acts 10:45-48 (King James Version) 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days
And so now, who is questioning the authenticity of the scriptures?
Water baptism certainly will not save you, but it is an act of obedience and public demonstration showing that one has repented and confessed Jesus as Lord.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,I DID NOT SAY THAT JESUS WAS NOT BAPTIZED. JESUS FULFILLED ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS BY BEING BAPTIZED. I SAID THAT HE NEVER TAUGHT A DOCTRINE OF WATER BAPTISM AS A REQUISITE.
PLEASE DON'T MISREPRESENT.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,05:44) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,02:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,16:58) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 06 2011,13:11) I got a “real grip” on what you already said, “That if Jesus meant water baptism in using the Tri-une formula Trinitarians cannot win”, and since Trinitarians baptize new converts in water using this formula, they by your own admission lose, and that includes Kieth also, since he is a Trinitarian who believes that Jesus meant “water baptism”. And Jack, I totally agree with you, “Trinitarians lose”.
BAM!
No it is you guys that lose by claiming the scripture is not scripture.You can't argue all scripture is inspired and you hold to them when you deny them.
Bam Bam Bam!
Why should anyone believe you when you say the scriptures are Gods word when you reject it?
Bam Bam Bam!
WJ
Hi Keith:I say that Matthew 28:19 is not what Jesus stated because the Holy Spirit is not “A Third Person of a Tri-une God”, and I have given you scripture to support my understanding of this, and also, I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
MartyInterpretation of Martys words:
My doctrine is more important to me than Jesus own words. Rather than let the scriptures which are inspired and written by an eye witness of Jesus correct me, I will reject it because my belief does not allow me to accept it as Gods word.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) The manuscripts that exist are copies of the supposedly originals, and so, this scripture could have easily been altered. The YLT has the Tri-une formula in parenthesis, and I question why this is so.
Yes, thousand of them Marty, yet all of them are the same! And what makes them even more valid is the fact there is not a single MSS that has Matthew 28:19 in a different form.
As far as the “YLT” showing the three in parenthesis means nothing because Young still translated it according to the text. Have you investigated why Young did that? Before you start making claims like Mike you should see why it is in Parenthesis shouldn’t you?
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) And you want to use the Didache to support this scripture and you are correct it does appear in the Didache, along with other instructions about baptism which are not in the scriptures. This is what the Didache states relative to baptism: Quote
Chapter SevenAnd concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
The above copied from http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Didache-text.htmlAnd so, are you saying that all this chapter on baptism should be scriptural?
What does it matter about the rest. The rest is not in scripture but Matthew 28:19 is and is found in the Didache. What more proof do you want that Matthew 28:19 is scripture?WJ
Hi Keith:Is the Holy Spirit a “Third Person” of a Tri-une God? And if you say “yes”, then show me by the scriptures that this is so.
The Didache is not the inspired Word of God, and therefore, it does not prove anything except it shows where some false practices regarding baptism originated.
The manuscripts are hand copied, and so regardless of the number. One of them could have been altered, and the rest copied from that one.
What about the following scripture which apparently was added:
Quote 1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. NIV footnote:
Quote Footnotes:
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)If they did it here, why do you think that it might not have been done with Matthew 28:19 as well?
I will also try to find out why the YLT lists the Tri-une formula in Matthew 28:19 in parenthesis.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,06:04) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:26) Marty said: Quote I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
Marty,Prove that the Acts narratives aren't corrupt. Peter had to be corrected on a couple of things both by God and by Paul. So maybe Peter was in error in using the “in the name of Jesus” formula. Hey, if you're going to cast doubt on the authenticity of certain portions of the scripture, then let's go all the way my man.
Jack
Hi Jack:The Apostle Paul also baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Paul baptized only a few Jews. Baptism was not for the Gentiles.http://myredeemer.org/foundation/baptism/paul.shtml
Paul himself was not baptized with water. He was baptized in the house of Ananias by standing up and putting off his sins.
http://www.biblestudying.net/baptism6.html
Jesus did not command water baptism. He never taught a doctrine of water baptism before the Great Commission. Why would He do so at the end?
Water baptism along with all other external regulations was on its way out by the time the book of Hebrews was written about ad68. (Hebrews 6:1-3; 9:6-10).
Jack
Hi Jack:Were Cornelius and those with him whom the Apostle Peter commanded to be baptized Gentiles?
Jesus said: “Thus it becometh “US” to fulfill all righteousness”.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,14:15) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,05:44) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,02:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,16:58) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 06 2011,13:11) I got a “real grip” on what you already said, “That if Jesus meant water baptism in using the Tri-une formula Trinitarians cannot win”, and since Trinitarians baptize new converts in water using this formula, they by your own admission lose, and that includes Kieth also, since he is a Trinitarian who believes that Jesus meant “water baptism”. And Jack, I totally agree with you, “Trinitarians lose”.
BAM!
No it is you guys that lose by claiming the scripture is not scripture.You can't argue all scripture is inspired and you hold to them when you deny them.
Bam Bam Bam!
Why should anyone believe you when you say the scriptures are Gods word when you reject it?
Bam Bam Bam!
WJ
Hi Keith:I say that Matthew 28:19 is not what Jesus stated because the Holy Spirit is not “A Third Person of a Tri-une God”, and I have given you scripture to support my understanding of this, and also, I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
MartyInterpretation of Martys words:
My doctrine is more important to me than Jesus own words. Rather than let the scriptures which are inspired and written by an eye witness of Jesus correct me, I will reject it because my belief does not allow me to accept it as Gods word.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) The manuscripts that exist are copies of the supposedly originals, and so, this scripture could have easily been altered. The YLT has the Tri-une formula in parenthesis, and I question why this is so.
Yes, thousand of them Marty, yet all of them are the same! And what makes them even more valid is the fact there is not a single MSS that has Matthew 28:19 in a different form.As far as the “YLT” showing the three in parenthesis means nothing because Young still translated it according to the text. Have you investigated why Young did that? Before you start making claims like Mike you should see why it is in Parenthesis shouldn’t you?
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) And you want to use the Didache to support this scripture and you are correct it does appear in the Didache, along with other instructions about baptism which are not in the scriptures. This is what the Didache states relative to baptism: Quote
Chapter SevenAnd concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
The above copied from http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Didache-text.htmlAnd so, are you saying that all this chapter on baptism should be scriptural?
What does it matter about the rest. The rest is not in scripture but Matthew 28:19 is and is found in the Didache. What more proof do you want that Matthew 28:19 is scripture?WJ
Hi Keith:Is the Holy Spirit a “Third Person” of a Tri-une God? And if you say “yes”, then show me by the scriptures that this is so.
How many scriptures do you need that there are three?Matt 28:19 is scripture Marty.
How about these that mention all three…
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. – Luke 1:35
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. – John 3:34
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. – John 14:26
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. – Acts 2:32-33
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. – Romans 8:11
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. – 1 Corinthians 12:3
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. – 1 Corinthians 12:4-6
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. – 2 Corinthians 13:14
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. – Galatians 4:6
There are litterally hundreds that speak of the three.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,14:15) The Didache is not the inspired Word of God, and therefore, it does not prove anything except it shows where some false practices regarding baptism originated. The manuscripts are hand copied, and so regardless of the number. One of them could have been altered, and the rest copied from that one.
What about the following scripture which apparently was added:
Quote 1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Do you believe there are “Three that bear witness in heaven”?Do you believe they are One?
That scripture doesn't contradict anything in scripture.
1 John 5:7 was found in “Some” manuscripts so I believe it is Gods word. Matt 28:19 is in all the extant MSS.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,14:15) If they did it here, why do you think that it might not have been done with Matthew 28:19 as well? I will also try to find out why the YLT lists the Tri-une formula in Matthew 28:19 in parenthesis.
Then who is to say that the Arians didn't corrupt the text for the Arains also were part of the church in those days in fact they sent Athanasius into exile?So the next time you bring up a scripture that you say proves only the Father is God how do I know it is true since the scriptures also call Jesus God? What would you say to me for instance If I said that 1 Cor 8:6 or John 17:3 was added by Arians?
What would you say?
You cast a shadow of doubt on the written word we have and therefore you have no right to claim the Bible as Gods word for any part of your doctrine.
The Bible is a Trinitarian book and like it or not the scriptures that are in it are inspired unless you have evidence they aren't.
Your opinions and doctrine does not matter if they contradict the book!
WJ
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,13:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,06:04) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:26) Marty said: Quote I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
Marty,Prove that the Acts narratives aren't corrupt. Peter had to be corrected on a couple of things both by God and by Paul. So maybe Peter was in error in using the “in the name of Jesus” formula. Hey, if you're going to cast doubt on the authenticity of certain portions of the scripture, then let's go all the way my man.
Jack
Hi Jack:The Apostle Paul also baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Paul baptized only a few Jews. Baptism was not for the Gentiles.http://myredeemer.org/foundation/baptism/paul.shtml
Paul himself was not baptized with water. He was baptized in the house of Ananias by standing up and putting off his sins.
http://www.biblestudying.net/baptism6.html
Jesus did not command water baptism. He never taught a doctrine of water baptism before the Great Commission. Why would He do so at the end?
Water baptism along with all other external regulations was on its way out by the time the book of Hebrews was written about ad68. (Hebrews 6:1-3; 9:6-10).
Jack
Hi Jack:Were Cornelius and those with him whom the Apostle Peter commanded to be baptized Gentiles?
Jesus said: “Thus it becometh “US” to fulfill all righteousness”.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyif any reside in Israel does he not have to be treated has he was an Israelite ??
also did not all have been baptized in Noah ??
and many were converts in Israel.
and Peter reverse the procedure first the spirit then the water baptism?(repentance)Pierre
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,14:15) The Didache is not the inspired Word of God, and therefore, it does not prove anything except it shows where some false practices regarding baptism originated.
MartyWrong! It proves along with many other writings of the early Fathers that the tripart form of Matt 28:19 is scripture.
WJ
ALL
my question is who really had received the power to baptize in the holy spirit or what does it means to be baptized(filled) by the holy spirit (filled with the knowledge of God and his son ?)
but my question would be why in the name of the father ? and in the name of the so ?
anyone for answers??
Pierre
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 07 2011,01:29) I HAVE GIVEN SEVERAL BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMPLES THAT BAPTISM OCCURRED WITHOUT WATER. NOW PROVE THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM IN MATTHEW 28:19 MIKE! YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRI-UNE NAME IN MATTHEW 28:19 IS LAME AND UNSCHOLARLY MIKE. YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY STUPID. NOT ALL AGREE WITH THE CATHOLICS THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM.
YOU LOSE MIKE! THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRI-UNE NAME IN THE HOLY WORD OF GOD STANDS!
Jack
Wow! Get angry much?
Jack, here's what we know as FACTS:
1. Trinitarians HAVE altered God's written word before.
2. Your “water/no water” argument is bunk, because WHO CARES? Jesus supposedly gave a command to his discipes to go baptizing using a particular formula. He didn't specify whether or not water was to be used in these baptisms. He did not designate them to only use this formula IF WATER IS TO BE USED or anything like that.
3. NOT ONE Apostle in scripture baptised using the formula Jesus supposedly gave them to use.
4. Even if left as is, 28:19 says NOT ONE SINGLE THING about any “trinity Godhead”.
That's really all there is to this scripture. Sorry.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 07 2011,09:34) No it is you guys that lose by claiming the scripture is not scripture. You can't argue all scripture is inspired and you hold to them when you deny them.
And what if this discussion was about the word “God” in Jude 1:4? Or about 1 John 5:8?What if we were discussing how 5:8 just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the scriptures? Would you have faulted us for our concerns about that one too? Of course you would have.
Keith, it's not like we at HN just all of a sudden thought to ourselves, “I know, let's make up some lies about an inspired scripture to destroy a clear trinity proof text”.
First of all, even as is it's not even close to a trinity proof text. Second, this discussion is almost as old as the NT itself. And third, it has been the object of a 2000 year old discussion for a very good reason: Jesus said THIS, the Apostles did THAT.
And knowing for a fact that Trinitarians have doctored God's Word before in an effort to support the “Jesus is God” thinking, don't you think you're being a little harsh of those of us who DO ACTUALLY believe all of the scriptures, but are simply a little leery that someone might have doctored this one?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 07 2011,09:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,11:03) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 06 2011,02:50) Mike said: Quote The green words above are words written by TRINITARIANS!
We just want the word of God Mike. PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT MIKE!Jack
Jack,Please answer my very simple question:
Don't you find it a little odd that Jesus gave an EXACT formula for baptism, yet not ONE of the Apostles followed his command and used this formula?
This IS the word of God, Jack. It IS the word of God that EVERY baptism recorded in scripture was done in the name of Jesus, not “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.
So answer the question with a YES or a NO, please.
mike
NO!!!
Why not, Keith?mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 07 2011,11:05)
First of all I did answer the question. “NO.
Really Keith? HAD YOU ANSWERED IT AT THE TIME I POSTED? No, you answered it only today. Don't take a two day old post of mine that is asking you for an answer you only gave today, and repost it as if you had already answered but I asked again anyway. That is dishonest and you know it.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 07 2011,11:05)
Second as usual I figured I better check your source and see what your quote says in context and LO and BEHOLD I found this….This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
So the writer above is in no way telling you he is in doubt of Matthew 28:19 because he says that they did obey the commission in the tripart name. He also says “This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them
Mike you should pay more attention to what you read.
First of all Keith, I DID POST THAT PART WHEN I ORIGINALLY QUOTED THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.Second, I've already had a discussion with Jack ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PART. Here it is, from 5 pages back:
Quote Listen to what they say, Jack: It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
Listen to how they justify this “unlikelyness”:
In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
But I didn't post enough of Acts 19 last night…………here's the rest:
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
So while the Catholics claim that 19:3 shows that Paul baptised in the triune formula, it really doesn't, does it? In fact, it shows just the opposite. Because after hearing they did NOT receive the Holy Spirit, Paul proceeded to baptise them in the name of JESUS, and then they DID receive the Holy Spirit.
Which leaves us with their own haunting question still unanswered:
It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
So what do you say now Keith? Their “explanation scripture” turns out to be just one more scripture showing an Apostle baptising in the NAME OF JESUS, and those baptised receiving the Holy Spirit as a result. So their concern about it being “ALTOGETHER UNLIKELY” remains unresolved, doesn't it?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 07 2011,11:05)
Even if what you are saying is that they contradict each other (Though they don’t) then why do you believe the Apostles over Jesus own words recorded by the eyewitness Matthew?
Like I've already said, I'm leery that those REALLY WERE Jesus' words. The evidence just doesn't fit. And we both KNOW trinitarians have doctored the Book before, right? They are still doing it today. They take “firstborn OF all creation” and change it to “OVER all creation”, even though the word is clearly genetive and should be “OF”.And they KEEP doing it day by day. Look at the NIV's rendering of Phil 2:6 today:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;A month or so ago it said, “something to be grasped”. And consider the KJV version of Rev 3:14 – “the beginning of the creation of God”. How many trinitarian sponsored Bibles render it that way today? None?
It just keeps going and going, Keith. Any little phrase that they think they can get away with “slanting” to support “Jesus is God”, they do it. It's pathetic and dishonest.
We should all start keeping notes of the changes as they happen, and document them.
But Keith, you have subtly implied dishonesty on my part at least once in your post. Please don't make a habit of this. I am a VERY honest person.
mike
Mike
Mt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
should be;Therefore go and make disciples of all peoples ,filled them with the knowledge of the father and the son in a holy spirit.
but this is not what it says.
Pierre
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 07 2011,11:12) TO KEEP MY RESPECT YOU WILL HAVE TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO BE LIKE MIKEBOLL!
I'm not sure Marty gives two hoots about “your respect” in the first place. But just to set the record straight, you have accused me of “wrongdoing” about 20 times since I joined HN.And in the process of “proving it”, we have discovered that I was dishonest or devious ZERO TIMES. But in that same process, we've discovered that you were dishonest or devious about 5 or 6 times.
Every time you accuse me, you end up getting busted for something I hadn't even noticed before!
You should probably stop accusing me.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 07 2011,11:16) WJ said: Quote Second as usual I figured I better check your source and see what your quote says in context and LO and BEHOLD I found this…. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. IN FACT, THE WORDS OF ST..PAUL (ACTS 19) IMPLY QUITE PLAINLY THAT THEY DID NOT. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
Do you see it Mike. The source is looking at it from the perspective of the Apostles and says… IN FACT, THE WORDS OF ST..PAUL (ACTS 19) IMPLY QUITE PLAINLY THAT THEY DID NOT. (They did not do differently than Jesus words in Matt 28:19)
So the writer above is in no way telling you he is in doubt of Matthew 28:19 because he says that they did obey the commission in the tripart name. He also says “This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them
Mike you should pay more attention to what you read.
Keith,You have shown AGAIN that Mike has reading comprehension problems.
Jack
Oh COME ON, JACK! I can understand if Keith didn't read my post to you, but YOU AND I ACTUALLY DISCUSSED THIS MATTER.Maybe it's not I who has reading problems, but you who has a memory problem. It was only 3 or 4 days ago.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 07 2011,11:33) Marty said: Quote The manuscripts that exist are copies of the supposedly originals, and so, this scripture could have easily been altered. The YLT has the Tri-une formula in parenthesis, and I question why this is so.
marty,This one is super lame. Come on! Translators use BRACKETS to indicate where a text is questionable.
Shame on you!
Jack
So then Young himself also thought this text was “questionable”? Great, add one more to our number.Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 07 2011,17:03) Mike Mt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
should be;Therefore go and make disciples of all peoples ,filled them with the knowledge of the father and the son in a holy spirit.
but this is not what it says.
Pierre
Hi Pierre,What do you mean?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,07:51) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,14:15) The Didache is not the inspired Word of God, and therefore, it does not prove anything except it shows where some false practices regarding baptism originated.
MartyWrong! It proves along with many other writings of the early Fathers that the tripart form of Matt 28:19 is scripture.
WJ
Hi Keith:Well if that is so, then the Apostles disobeyed Jesus because none of them baptized believers using the Tri-une formula.
Tertulian is actually credited with first using the word “Trintas” and according to my readings in a book entitled “Introducation to Christology”, he invented many other words for the Latin language. I also have read that he baptized using the Tri-une formula, and that he would ask the believer “Do you believe in the Father” and he would dip them in the water, and then he would ask: “do you believe in the Son” and he would dunk them again, and then again for the Holy Spirit”, and so, is this the early church Father that you put in whom you put your confidence.
It was the Apostles who were there when Jesus said that all power in heaven and earth had been given unto him, and was them that he commanded to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, and so, surely, if he had used the Tri-une forumla, they would have obeyed him. They only baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (terraricca @ Mar. 08 2011,07:47) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,13:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,06:04) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:26) Marty said: Quote I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
Marty,Prove that the Acts narratives aren't corrupt. Peter had to be corrected on a couple of things both by God and by Paul. So maybe Peter was in error in using the “in the name of Jesus” formula. Hey, if you're going to cast doubt on the authenticity of certain portions of the scripture, then let's go all the way my man.
Jack
Hi Jack:The Apostle Paul also baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Paul baptized only a few Jews. Baptism was not for the Gentiles.http://myredeemer.org/foundation/baptism/paul.shtml
Paul himself was not baptized with water. He was baptized in the house of Ananias by standing up and putting off his sins.
http://www.biblestudying.net/baptism6.html
Jesus did not command water baptism. He never taught a doctrine of water baptism before the Great Commission. Why would He do so at the end?
Water baptism along with all other external regulations was on its way out by the time the book of Hebrews was written about ad68. (Hebrews 6:1-3; 9:6-10).
Jack
Hi Jack:Were Cornelius and those with him whom the Apostle Peter commanded to be baptized Gentiles?
Jesus said: “Thus it becometh “US” to fulfill all righteousness”.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyif any reside in Israel does he not have to be treated has he was an Israelite ??
also did not all have been baptized in Noah ??
and many were converts in Israel.
and Peter reverse the procedure first the spirit then the water baptism?(repentance)Pierre
Hi Pierre:I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say by your questions:
Cornelius and those with them were the first gentile believers who received the Holy Ghost, but no, Peter did not reverse the procedure. It is Jesus who baptized the believers with Holy Ghost. Sometimes believers receive the Holy Ghost prior to being baptized in water, and sometimes they receive the Holy Ghost after they are baptized in water. Salvation is based on someone comeing to God with a repentant heart by Faith in what He has done for them in the person of His Son and His Christ. Baptism is a work showing that one has repented and has made Jesus Christ their Lord, and it symbolizes their union with Jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection.
In the days of Noah, eight people were saved by the Ark from the judgment of God. The ark of safety in our time is the body of Christ.
This is what the Apostle Peter wrote:
Quote 1 Peter 3:18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 08 2011,18:24) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 07 2011,17:03) Mike Mt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
should be;Therefore go and make disciples of all peoples ,filled them with the knowledge of the father and the son in a holy spirit.
but this is not what it says.
Pierre
Hi Pierre,What do you mean?
Mikebaptism = filled so this would change the spelling ,NO?
but one of my questions was if baptism as to be given in the holy spirit what is it mean ??the holy spirit is a gift to certain believers that is the power of it not the written word and understanding that God has provide trough it ..
also being baptized in the name of the Father what that mean
or does it mean just that ? If we have to use the name of God it would be which one ??same with the son ,would this mean Jesus ? THE WORD ?? Christ? or Jesus Christ?? and what would be the usefulness of it ? or purpose of it ??
God always act for a reason,and he never change.
if you tell me to go see this person in your name would i not use Mike to tell that person in witch name i came to see him ??
is God any different ?
or it means what i showed you.
Pierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
