- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Malcolm,
I see you quoted Matt 28.19 in one of your posts. What do you think of the information Eusebius provided about that verse?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 29 2006,19:46) Hi Malcolm,
I see you quoted Matt 28.19 in one of your posts. What do you think of the information Eusebius provided about that verse?
t is historical and therefore speculative. As a historian you will find Eusebius had pro-Constantine leanings. I don't know that I would trust my understanding of scriptures to such historical writings.
I believe the scriptures are inspired writings as Paul declared and profitable for doctrine.
I also believe that God who, preserved the scrolls of the old testament is well able to do the same for the bible we have today.
As it stands I have no problem with Mt 28:19 as it does not conflict in my view with the understanding that we must be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as stated in Acts.Hi Malcolm,
So what is plain is that the meaning of the verse is not what is first seen and it cannot be taken at face value. Otherwise all of the works of baptism done in Christ in Acts was done in rebellion and contrary to his specific instructions, and yet was effective? They were all baptised in the name of Jesus.The Holy Spirit has no given name anyway because it is of God Himself.
Hi all:
This is interesting regarding Eusebius and Matthew 28:19. My understanding is similar to Malcolm's.
Matt: 18:19 states: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. The emphasis is “in the name of” which is singular. The name Jesus when translated means “Jehovah is salvation”. This denotes unity God's purpose for this world which is the salvation of his children from the consequences of sin. They are two persons the Father and the Son in the Spirit of Holiness united in this purpose.
Quote (malcolm ferris @ May 29 2006,23:59) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 29 2006,19:46) Hi Malcolm,
I see you quoted Matt 28.19 in one of your posts. What do you think of the information Eusebius provided about that verse?
t is historical and therefore speculative. As a historian you will find Eusebius had pro-Constantine leanings. I don't know that I would trust my understanding of scriptures to such historical writings.
I believe the scriptures are inspired writings as Paul declared and profitable for doctrine.
I also believe that God who, preserved the scrolls of the old testament is well able to do the same for the bible we have today.
As it stands I have no problem with Mt 28:19 as it does not conflict in my view with the understanding that we must be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as stated in Acts.
Hi Malcolm and 94,
Eusebius may not have been the best of witnesses but he is the only one we got. He alone claims to have had an original copy of Matthew's gospel and quotes what he saw written there. He was not teaching or justifying any doctrine but just telling us what he had seen and he had no reason to lie as far as can be known.
The apostles baptised in the name of Jesus Christ in obedience to what they had heard from the mouth of the Master, but men now baptise according to Matt 28.19. Only one can be right surely?Hi Nick:
Acts 4:12 states: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”.
Faith in that name must be in a person's heart before he is baptized in water. If it is there, it does not matter whether the person doing the baptizing says I baptize you in the “name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost or simply in the name of Jesus as the apostles did in the Acts of the apostles. As I have shown the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is “Jesus” which means “Jehovah is salvation”.
Hi 94,
Acts 22
” 16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”Salvation is in the name of the Son of God.
Acts 7
” 59They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”ACTS 16
” 31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.”
The Lord Jesus
Acts 9
1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
10And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.”
I apologize to everyone I may have offended in these forums.
Please don't look at me as an example of what a JW is, I haven't been one in over 10 years.
Anyway, I'm sorry for anyone in these forums that I've upset. I'm going to get my life on track, so I will no longer be joining in on these conversations for quite some time, if ever again.
I don't want my opinions to offend anymore people, so again I apologize to all.
The complete board is back to being your's Nick……………may your efforts of spreading “your” truth bring you all the happiness you can get from it.
And to anyone on this site that bashes the witnesses, please remember this, It's not the witnesses you are bashing, but Jehovah.
And to all you “born again” Christians who love using Jesus name……..please think about this info:
God’s name is Jehovah
“We do not say that “Jehovah” is the correct pronunciation of God's name. For that matter, neither is “Jesus” the correct pronunciation of Christ's name. But according to the Aramaic language which Christ and his apostles spoke, his name was pronounced “Yeshu'a”……. But “Jesus” is only our colloquial way of pronouncing his name, and we do not find fault with you for using it instead of Yeshu'a.
It might be added here what the meaning of the Son of God's name “Jesus” is, whilst he dwelt on earth as a man, as used by all translations. According to Weymouth this name means “Jehovah is Salvation.”(The New Testament in Modern Speech, ftnote 21 under Matthew 1:21.) He is entirely right. So every time anyone uses this name, Jesus, (which is not the original pronunciation of it in the 1st century) he is using and supporting a form of The Divine Name JEHOVAH
“Those who reject the English “Jehovah” and insist on using the Hebrew pronunciation[Yahweh] would do well to ask themselves why they say “Jesus Christ,” when that was not the way his name was pronounced in Hebrew. That is the English way, derived from the Greek language. In Hebrew, Jesus would be closer to “Yehshua” and Christ would be “Mash'edahh.” So, as we say “Jesus Christ” in the English language, we also say “Jehovah,” both being correct when speaking English.”
I again apologize to everyone I may have offended….
My only request was that you quit arguing over stupid stuff, and focus on the more important issues in these last days, but even I can't seem to stop arguing, so I'm bowing out to go do what I know I need to do to get my life back on track.
There's no need to respond to my messages anymore, because I'm now saying good buy to you all…………….
May all of your searches for “truth” bring you to what it is you are searching for.
Peace to all….I'm out!
Hi qa,
Seek the freedom to be found in the Son of God.Mal 4.2
” 2″But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 22 2007,20:31) Hi Tim,
Here is the thread.
Thanks Nick,
Sorry that I started another one. I did not know this one was here.
WorshippingJesus got his bowels in an uproar because I questioned the triune baptism commandment in Mat. and he wanted my credentials to even question it.When I told him that I had none it somehow made him sick.
So, without having to disturb his gastro intestinal well being again, by answering him directly, I started the thread on Mat. 28:19.The information that I posted was just so that other people could research each of the sources given, and come to their own conclusions.
It is important to remember that it doesn't matter what organization provided those sources. We can discount that organization and go to each of the reference materials themselves for clarification.
Thanks again Nick. I had not quite figured out yet, what you were doing when you brought up an old post and said “topical”.
Now I know.
Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
