What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?

[Truther]

Fascinating....what man taught you that?

Myself, after 43 years of observation.

 

[Truther]

I see that you ALSO found that your hypovrisy to be funny . . .

Did the 8-day-old babies of the Old Covenant understand thay THEY were entering into a solemn promise with God?

No? then, WHY did God insist that they enter the Covenant at 8-days-old, Einstein?
Answer: Because, just as the Old Covenant was a FAMILY setting where the parents promised to raised the child in faith - the NEW Covenant is ALSO a FAMILY ssetting where the parents promise to do the same.

Acts 2:38-39
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

This ain't Rocket Science, Einstein . . .

How old are your grown children, Catholic?

The promise is for believing candidates to be baptized, Catholic.

"Repent" is part of the promise to the children in verse 38-39.

Catholics are smarter than that, Catholic.

 

[Marymog]

Myself, after 43 years of observation.

Good morning truther,

Soooo if I find somebody that has taught themselves for 50 years, they would have 7 more years of "observation" than you. Should I believe them over you if they teach something opposite of you? After all, they have 7 more years of "observation" than you sooooo obviously they must know better than you.....Right?

Also, if your teaching disagrees with Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp should I accept your teaching or theirs?

Curious Mary

 

[Truther]

Good morning truther,

Soooo if I find somebody that has taught themselves for 50 years, they would have 7 more years of "observation" than you. Should I believe them over you if they teach something opposite of you? After all, they have 7 more years of "observation" than you sooooo obviously they must know better than you.....Right?

Also, if your teaching disagrees with Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp should I accept your teaching or theirs?

Curious Mary

You asked who taught me this historical observation, right?

I just gave you my answer, so you must take it as you wish.

I am a free thinker as you are, so I must develop my opinions as you must.

I understand that the Acts 2 church of the 3000 at Pentecost baptized repenting individuals in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins and the RCC does not.

My mama is the Acts 2 church.

Yours is the RCC.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

You seem to be an intellectual that can comprehend this, unlike your brother, BOL.

 

[Joshu@21]

I see that you ALSO found that your hypovrisy to be funny . . .
.
Acts 2:38-39
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Where exactly in the Bible does it clearly say that we can baptise babies? Acts 2:39 is not saying that we can baptise babies. It's saying that the Holy Spirit is for all people.

Yes. God had babies enter into a covenant in the old testament but that does not mean to say that God wants us to baptise babies as we live under the new testament.

How do we know this? Because if that was the case we would see that in the New Testament. But we don't.

There are 0 instances in which a baby is baptised in the Bible.

It's also important to look at the last line of Acts 2:39 "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” How does God call out to others in the New Testament? Through the Gospel.

Is a baby able to respond to the Gospel?

Romans 10:10 -14 states: For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Can a baby understand the Gospel? No. Because in order to understand the Gospel one has to first hear the gospel.

 

[PinSeeker]

Yes, stick to baptizing folks in the name of the son....

I do. And the Father and the Spirit as well. :) Just like the Son told us... son. LOL! :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Marymog]

You asked who taught me this historical observation, right?

I just gave you my answer, so you must take it as you wish.

I am a free thinker as you are, so I must develop my opinions as you must.

I understand thet the Acts 2 church of the 3000 at Pentecost baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins and the RCC does not.

My mama is the Acts 2 church.

Yours is the RCC.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

You seem to be an intellectual that can comprehend this, unlike your brother, BOL.

You crack me up Truther. What you bloviated about was and is not an "historical observation". It is YOU putting together what YOU think Scripture says and then YOU take Christian history and then twist both Scripture AND Christian history into what YOU believe. Unless you can come up with same names of Bible and Christian scholars who have come up with the same conclusion you have? Unless YOU can do that everthing YOU have written is YOUR opinion.

Sooooooooo, lets move on: It appears you are not going to answer my questions???? To be honest with you, I already knew you wouldn't, but I thought it would be fun to see how you dance around the FACT that your 43 years of "observation" mean nothing to anyone but you.

Keeping it real (with facts)....Mary

LATE EDIT: @BreadOfLife is intellectual and destroys what your men have taught you with every post. He is a brother in Christ that I am proud to be associated with.

 

[Marymog]

And Babies should not be getting baptised. Why? Because there is no instance found in the Bible where this is done. None. The response to the gospel has to be a personal one. You cannot force someone to respond to the gospel in the same way that you cannot force someone to have a meaningful relationship with God. Teach them the word of God, pray over them and allow them to make this decision when they understand that they are sinners in need of God.

hey Joshu,

Using your logic that the bible doesn't say to baptize: where in Scripture does it say how old one has to be to get baptized? Since it's not in Scripture how old one has to be so how do you KNOW that we shouldn't baptize babies?

Scripture says that entire families were baptized. Were there no babies in those families that were baptized?

Nowhere in Scripture does it say how to baptize. So how do we know HOW to do it?

Also, Scripture says that His promise is for you and your children. Are you comfortable saying that His promise is not for babies?

Paul also confirms that baptism now replaces circumcision as entry into the New Covenant. Can you see the correlation? Or have you been taught by your men that there is no correlation?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Fact is, it is idiotic when a priest baptizes a baby in the name of the son without even saying the name of the son.

It is the equivalent to baptizing a male child in HIS OWN NAME...LOL.

The priest tells the male infant.."I baptize you in the name of the son...oops, you are a son...silly me..."

LOL....Why do you keep alluding to "priest" and baptism? You do know that your Protestant brothers also baptize babies and they aren't priest. Or do you want to ignore that fact that your teaching is opposite of what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years which includes your 500 year old Protestant brothers/sisters? How is it that most everyone else has misinterpreted Scripture but YOU....Truther (which really shouldn't be your name)....haven't misinterpreted it?

Jokes of the day for Friday, 04 March 2022 | Jokes of the day

 

[Truther]

The baby that is newborn, is unlike the Catholic who is dead and does not know it.

 

[Truther]

I do. And the Father and the Spirit as well. :) Just like the Son told us... son. LOL! :)

Grace and peace to you.

Skipping saying the verbal name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins during water baptism is not LOL material.

 

[Truther]

You crack me up Truther. What you bloviated about was and is not an "historical observation". It is YOU putting together what YOU think Scripture says and then YOU take Christian history and then twist both Scripture AND Christian history into what YOU believe. Unless you can come up with same names of Bible and Christian scholars who have come up with the same conclusion you have? Unless YOU can do that everthing YOU have written is YOUR opinion.

Sooooooooo, lets move on: It appears you are not going to answer my questions???? To be honest with you, I already knew you wouldn't, but I thought it would be fun to see how you dance around the FACT that your 43 years of "observation" mean nothing to anyone but you.

Keeping it real (with facts)....Mary

LATE EDIT: @BreadOfLife is intellectual and destroys what your men have taught you with every post. He is a brother in Christ that I am proud to be associated with.

I don't care about post Biblical commentary.

I am sola scriptura.

I don't need an army of "scholars" to consult with to accept the fact that the RCC is the mama of harlots.

 

[Truther]

LOL....Why do you keep alluding to "priest" and baptism? You do know that your Protestant brothers also baptize babies and they aren't priest. Or do you want to ignore that fact that your teaching is opposite of what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years which includes your 500 year old Protestant brothers/sisters? How is it that most everyone else has misinterpreted Scripture but YOU....Truther (which really shouldn't be your name)....haven't misinterpreted it?

Jokes of the day for Friday, 04 March 2022 | Jokes of the day

The protestants are not my brothers.

The protestants are your RCC daughters.

They also disobey Acts 2:38 and tinker with the rest of the Bible in their unsaved state.

The RCC protests Peter and the 3000 of Acts 2(38).

All you folks are the lost renegades.

 

[Marymog]

The protestants are not my brothers.

All you folks are the lost renegades.

Sooooo you don't deny the universal authority of the Pope AND you don't think that the Bible is the only source of revealed truth? You believe what The Church teaches in that the magisterium reveals the truth of Scripture? Welcome to The Church started by Christ with Peter as it's first 'pope' my brother.....;)

Protestant Defined: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth

 

[Marymog]

I don't care about post Biblical commentary.

I am sola scriptura.

I don't need an army of "scholars" to consult with to accept the fact that the RCC is the mama of harlots.

I know. You only need yourself to consult with! The only important biblical commentary is the commentary YOU produce. F A S C I N A T I N G!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

How old are your grown children, Catholic?
The promise is for believing candidates to be baptized, Catholic.
"Repent" is part of the promise to the children in verse 38-39.
Catholics are smarter than that, Catholic.

If God made the Old Covenant according to YOUR idiotic logig - there would have been NO Jewish children.
But WHAT did Jesus say about the faith of children?

Matt. 18:3
And said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Luke 18:17
Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

God INCLUDES children iin BOTH Covenants. YOU don't.
What's wrong with this picture, Einstein?

And, I don't know why you think that callig me, "Catholic" is somehow inculting.
It's what I AM - hust as sure aas YOU are confused . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where exactly in the Bible does it clearly say that we can baptise babies? Acts 2:39 is not saying that we can baptise babies. It's saying that the Holy Spirit is for all people.

Yes. God had babies enter into a covenant in the old testament but that does not mean to say that God wants us to baptise babies as we live under the new testament.

How do we know this? Because if that was the case we would see that in the New Testament. But we don't.

There are 0 instances in which a baby is baptised in the Bible.

It's also important to look at the last line of Acts 2:39 "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” How does God call out to others in the New Testament? Through the Gospel.

Is a baby able to respond to the Gospel?

Romans 10:10 -14 states: For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Can a baby understand the Gospel? No. Because in order to understand the Gospel one has to first hear the gospel.

Hoe many first century Housrgolds go YOU suppose there were that haad ZERO children? A household in first century Palestine usually had qa family with children, in-laws from BOTH sides, servants and THEIR children, etc.

Peter Baptized the ENTIRE household of Cornelius.
Paul BBaptized the ENTIRE housaeholds of the Philippiuan Jailer and Stephanas.
These were NOT old men. They were working stiffs wut FAMILIES.

And rhere's anopther thing: The writings of the Early Church - MANY of who Protestants quote qhwn attempting to prove their doctrines.
Unless you're a conspiracy theorist and you actually believe thay they were right about many doctrinal issues - yet conspired against future Protestants regarding Infant Baptism - then this is a NO-BRAINER.

The Early Church wasa UNANIMOUS in the fact that -
- Infant Baptism was a practice that was handed down to them by the Apostles.
- That infants and small children were INCLUDED in the New Covenant.

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for INFANTS, sanctifying INFANTS; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to INFANTS. If there were nothing in INFANTS which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to INFANTS. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of INFANTS: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing INFANTS is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[Joshu@21]

Using your logic that the bible doesn't say to baptize: where in Scripture does it say how old one has to be to get baptized? Since it's not in Scripture how old one has to be so how do you KNOW that we shouldn't baptize babies?

The reason we know not to baptise babies is because of what we read in the Bible.

Romans 10:14 states: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?"

In order for someone to respond to the Gospel, they have to be able to put their faith in Jesus. A baby cannot place faith in Jesus. The only time they'll be able to do so is when they develop to an age where they understand who Jesus is and what he did for them.

Scripture says that entire families were baptized. Were there no babies in those families that were baptized?

Yes. There were no babies in those families that were baptised. How do we know this? Because again, babies cannot place their faith in Jesus. Therefore it would make no sense that babies were being baptised.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say how to baptize. So how do we know HOW to do it?

There are plenty of scriptures in the Bible where we are taught how to baptise. Matt 28:18-19 explains it well as do other scriptures in the book of Acts. We are to baptise using the name of Jesus. Yes. in the name of means by the authority of, but name and authority are used interchangeably in the Bible because authority lies within a name. That is why 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.

Also, the word baptism in Greek is baptizo which literally means to immerse.

Also, Scripture says that His promise is for you and your children. Are you comfortable saying that His promise is not for babies?

Now you're getting off-topic. Is Peter talking about water baptism when he says that? No. He's talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What he is saying is that it is God's will, or in other words, God's desire that everyone who is capable of receiving the Holy Spirit receives the Holy Spirit.

Paul also confirms that baptism now replaces circumcision as entry into the New Covenant. Can you see the correlation? Or have you been taught by your men that there is no correlation?

That is a great passage of scripture! There is a correlation there. There's correlation in a lot of places in the Bible because there is a lot of foreshadowing of the New Testament within the Old Testament. But all Paul is saying here is that the believers do not have to worry about circumcision because baptism replaces that. In fact, Paul doesn't address the subject of baptising babies. So this passage of scripture cannot be used to say that it's okay to baptise babies. Then you'd just be putting words in Paul's mouth.

 

[Joshu@21]

Yes. The Bible says entire families were baptised. Does that mean we are to assume that babies were baptised? No.

Romans 10:14 states: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?"

In order for someone to respond to the Gospel, they have to be able to put their faith in Jesus. A baby cannot place faith in Jesus. The only time they'll be able to do so is when they develop to an age where they understand who Jesus is and what he did for them.

Did Irenaeus write any part of the Bible? Did Hippolytus? Did Origen? Did Cyprian of Carthage? Did any of the people you quoted have anything to do with writing the Bible? No.

Then why are you using their teachings in order to prove your interpretation of the Bible?

Did God not do a good enough job when writing the Bible? Is his word not enough? Are you placing your faith in the Bible or are you placing it in the teachings of these men?

I bet at least one of those men taught about the trinity. A word and concept that is never seen in the Bible. How can you place trust in people that add to the Bible? God never described himself as being a part of a trinity. He described himself as being one.

Lay aside the teachings of these men that had nothing to do with writing the Bible and start placing your faith in what the Bible is actually saying.

 

[farouk]

Reading this has been rather interesting.

Firstly. We should begin by looking at Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit"

The first word we should focus on is, therefore. whenever you see a therefore in the Bible you should stop and ask yourself, "what's the therefore there for?" Context is everything. The "therefore" serves a purpose. So let's look at the verse that comes before it.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Whilst reading this thread I have read that "in the name of" is the same as "by the authority of".

In that case, we could read Matthew 28:18-19 like so, And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them by the authority of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit"

Jesus speaks of his authority in verse 18. Considering the "therefore" would it make sense that Jesus would then go on to speak about a different authority?
Is the authority of the Father, Son and Spirit different to his authority? By no means. Because Jesus is the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

How do we know this? Because that's what it says in the Bible.

John:1:1: In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John:1:14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 10:30 30 I and the Father are one.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Speaking about Jesus)
1st Timothy 3:16: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Okay. So how are we to baptise others?

We are to do so by using the name of Jesus. Why? Because the word "authority" and "name" are used interchangeably in the Bible.

I will give you an example. Let's look at Exodus 20:7: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

Nowadays we assume that this means you shouldn't use God's name as a swear word. Although this is true, that's not exactly what God is saying in this verse. What he is saying, is that you should never do an evil act and say that it is in his name that you are doing it. What's interesting about this is that we could swap "the name of the Lord your God" to "the authority of the Lord your God" and it would make no difference to the meaning of the verse.

How so? Because names hold authority.

What we read in Matthew 28:18-19 is that Jesus is permitting his disciples to use his authority. But how could they use his authority? In the same way, anyone would make use of the authority of another, through the name.

Originally God never had a name. Throughout the old testament, God makes use of names or titles to make himself better known to humanity. For example, Jehovah Jireh: my provider. Jehovah Shalom: prince of peace.

When we get to the New Testament we read that God manifests himself into a human being. Manifested as Jesus, he dies on the cross and then raises himself back to life so that humanity may have the opportunity to escape the wages of sin and have a meaningful relationship with him (there is a lot more that could be said on this subject matter, such as how Jesus was the lamb of God and that he was the perfect High priest, etc.) However, I want you to focus on one thing in particular: God manifested as Jesus, did what he did not do as Jehovah Jireh, Jehovah Nissi, YHWH, I am that I am, etc. He brought about the New Testament. He fulfilled the law of the old testament, defeated death, hell and the grave and made the gospel. This is why Jesus states in Matthew 28:18 that he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.

So then, it would make sense for us to baptise in the name of Jesus and not by saying "in the name of the father, son and Holy Spirit"

Especially as Acts 4:12 states: And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Also. The word trinity is never used in the Bible. We should not be using such a word/concept to explain the nature of God. Instead, maybe we should try using the Bible? The book in which God reveals himself to us? If you use the word trinity to explain the nature of God what you're doing is placing the teachings of Theophilus and the council of Nicea above the word of God. All we need to know about God is written in his word.

And Babies should not be getting baptised. Why? Because there is no instance found in the Bible where this is done. None. The response to the gospel has to be a personal one. You cannot force someone to respond to the gospel in the same way that you cannot force someone to have a meaningful relationship with God. Teach them the word of God, pray over them and allow them to make this decision when they understand that they are sinners in need of God.

Hi @Joshu@21 God in Three Persons is strongly present in Scripture, not least in Matthew 28.

Acts 2.41 shows that it was those who believed that were baptized. They were not baptized in order to try to become believers; they gladly received his word and so were baptized because they indeed were believers.