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

[tigger 2]

What is the name of the Son? #176 Joshua@21:

“So essentially. In order for it to support your belief, words that aren't there have to be added to Isaiah 9:6

”Let me ask you this. We know from Scripture that Jesus is God and God is Jesus (because Jesus says "before Abraham was I AM" and "I and my father are one") so how can Jesus not be the father?”

….……………………………..

It isn’t just my belief, It is the understanding of most scholars. I merely gave a few examples. There are many more.
........................................
“I am”

John 8:58 - Jesus said: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am [ego eimi]. -KJV. Notice that the KJV translators didn’t capitalize this phrase (I AM), indicating that they didn’t consider it a title for God. Cf. “Almighty” at Isaiah 13:6.

The Jews had asked how Jesus could have possibly known Abraham who had died nearly 2000 years before. Jesus’ reply was obviously an explanation that he had been in existence even before Abraham had been born and was not merely an explanation of identity.

It is ludicrous to interpret this verse with the understanding that Jesus is using the personal name (“Jehovah”) or an exclusive title (such as “Most High” - Luke 6:35; Luke 1:32; Ps. 83:18 ASV, KJV) to identify himself: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, Jehovah.” Or, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, the Most High.” So, the immediate context simply does not allow a “title of God” interpretation for the use of ego eimi in this verse!

The Jews had angrily implied that Jesus was a liar for claiming to be older than his apparent years. “You’re not even 50 years old and yet [you say] you have seen Abraham!” Jesus’ most likely response, then, would have been about his age --- his actual existence 1900 years before being born in Bethlehem (so that he actually could have “seen Abraham”). Therefore he would have said: “Before Abraham was even born, I existed.”

It would be more appropriate (although still clearly false), in light of the context, to show that the person whom the crowd is trying to identify at John 9:9 is claiming this “title” (ego eimi), for that is his reply to those who were questioning his identity (not his earlier existence) - see John 9:9 in any Interlinear New Testament.
........................................
“I and my Father are one”

“Holy Father, keep them in · your name, the name that you have given me, so that they may be one, just as we are one.” - John 17:11, Mounce.

 

[user]

What is the name of the Son? #176 Joshua@21:

“So essentially. In order for it to support your belief, words that aren't there have to be added to Isaiah 9:6

”Let me ask you this. We know from Scripture that Jesus is God and God is Jesus (because Jesus says "before Abraham was I AM" and "I and my father are one") so how can Jesus not be the father?”

….……………………………..

It isn’t just my belief, It is the understanding of most scholars. I merely gave a few examples. There are many more.
........................................
“I am”

John 8:58 - Jesus said: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am [ego eimi]. -KJV. Notice that the KJV translators didn’t capitalize this phrase (I AM), indicating that they didn’t consider it a title for God. Cf. “Almighty” at Isaiah 13:6.

The Jews had asked how Jesus could have possibly known Abraham who had died nearly 2000 years before. Jesus’ reply was obviously an explanation that he had been in existence even before Abraham had been born and was not merely an explanation of identity.

It is ludicrous to interpret this verse with the understanding that Jesus is using the personal name (“Jehovah”) or an exclusive title (such as “Most High” - Luke 6:35; Luke 1:32; Ps. 83:18 ASV, KJV) to identify himself: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, Jehovah.” Or, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, the Most High.” So, the immediate context simply does not allow a “title of God” interpretation for the use of ego eimi in this verse!

The Jews had angrily implied that Jesus was a liar for claiming to be older than his apparent years. “You’re not even 50 years old and yet [you say] you have seen Abraham!” Jesus’ most likely response, then, would have been about his age --- his actual existence 1900 years before being born in Bethlehem (so that he actually could have “seen Abraham”). Therefore he would have said: “Before Abraham was even born, I existed.”

It would be more appropriate (although still clearly false), in light of the context, to show that the person whom the crowd is trying to identify at John 9:9 is claiming this “title” (ego eimi), for that is his reply to those who were questioning his identity (not his earlier existence) - see John 9:9 in any Interlinear New Testament.
........................................
“I and my Father are one”

“Holy Father, keep them in · your name, the name that you have given me, so that they may be one, just as we are one.” - John 17:11, Mounce.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall
die in your sins.
John 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Matthew 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
Matthew 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root
and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

 

[Truther]

I already answered your first 2 points above in RED - multiple times.
Apparently, you haven’t been paying attention . . .

Baptism is the FULFILLMENT of Circumcision.
8-day-ols babies entered into a COVENANT with God based on the faith of their Parents.
In Baptism - Infants also enter into a (New) COVENANT with God based on the faith of their Parents.

Do you even understand what a “Covenant” is? It is a binding agreement between 2 or more parties.
Do you think that God is such an idiot that He doesn’t understand that a baby cannot willingly enter into a covenant on his own - without parental consent?

As to the Early Church’s teachings on Baptism – AGAIN, I already explained that I ONLY used their testimonies to show what they were teaching just 1-3 generations away from the Apostles.

Finally – as to your rejection of the Trinity – the Bible INDEED teaches that there is a Triune Godhead . Just because the WORD is not there doesn’t mean that the TEACHING isn’t.

So., next time you open your Bible – which doesn’t seem to be very often – tell me where you find the word, “Bible” or the LIST of Books that belong in it. Please also find, “Sola Scriptura”, “Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior”, “Eternal Security”. You won’t even find those teachings . . .

God is a Trinity
Genesis 1:26
Matt. 28:19
John 15:26
1 Cor. 12:4-6
2 Cor. 13:14,
1 John 5:7

The Father is God
Eph. 4:6
Psalm 68:5
Mal. 2:10
Isa. 63:16
2 Cor. 1:3-4
John 3:16
John 8:41
1 Thess.3:13

Jesus is God
Isa. 7:14
Isa. 9:6
Matt. 4:7
John 1:1
John 1:3
John 8:58
John 10:30
John 15:9
John 20:28
Acts 5:3-4
2 Cor. 4:4
Phil.2:6
Col.2:9
1 Tim. 3:16
Heb. 1:8
Titus 2:13

The Holy Spirit is God
John 14:16-18
Luke 12:10
2 Cor. 3:17
2 Cor. 13:5
John 14:23
Acts 5:3-4

What BOL is trying to say is that we are in the old covenant too.

He baptized babies as the old covenant circumcised them.

What he fails to realize is that circumcision is of the heart in the NT, and one must make a conscious decision for a change of heart.

 

[Truther]

Ummmm, srae talking about the "common ground" that exists between 2 Scripturally-bankrupt chaps like yourselves - or the "common ground" that spawned the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on the interpretational whims of mere MEN??

"Common ground"?
Sounds like quicksand to me . . .

We are not protestants.

We are originalists(Acts 2 adherents).

The RCC(your chaps) protested the originalists in the 4th century AD.

They stomped out the originalists of Acts 2, then installed the protestant RCC priests to deceive the world for the next 1700 years and counting.

Mama RCC is the 1st protest-ant, as she offically announced the end of Acts 2:38.

The angel Moroni also protested Acts 2:38, as the Mormons were specifically instructed to abandon Acts 2:38 and administer the titles(to also rid baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sins).

 

[PinSeeker]

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

Well, no, not at all; they just don't obey it in the way you "think" it ought to be... but that's the problem: your thinking.

And the astounding thing is that in being so hung up on Acts 2:38, you totally disregard what Jesus Christ ~ see? I said His lovely name ~ said... even commanded... in Matthew 28:19. Do you hold Peter above Jesus? Who is your Lord, Truther? These are rhetorical questions, of course; I'm just making a point... strongly. :)

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

I'm not Catholic, and Catholicism does have it's problems, some of them very big, but this is ridiculous.

All you folks are the lost renegades.

Since you seem to hold Peter in such high esteem, maybe you should remember ~ for your own sake ~ what the Lord told Peter (three times, actually) in Acts 10:15 ~ "What God has made clean, do not call common."

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Truther]

Do me a favor:
Show me where Peter or Paul told the children in the households they were baptuzing:
"I'll come back when you feel you are ready,"

Can you do that for me, Einstein?

No, you rejec the children - and Jesus is watching . . .

People like YOU who would keep infants from being Baptized are doing precisely what Christ Himself disapproved of . . .
Matt 19:14, Luke 18:16.
“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

I cannot show you Peter preaching "repent and be baptized" to infants.

You will have to find that in the RCC Bible.

Jesus did not say per the verse "baptize the kids".

He just told his disciples to let the kids get hugs and be blessed by him.

Boy, you sure know how to add extra baggage and philosophy to a passage, huh.

 

[Joshu@21]

What is the name of the Son? #176 Joshua@21:

Okay. In that case in order for “scholars” to support their beliefs, words have to be added to the Bible. There’s still a massive flaw there.

If Jesus isn’t God, then how could he have forgiven the sins of others? Also, why would he have been described as lord of the sabbath.

according to that interpretation of John 8, it is essentially being said that Jesus existed outside of God during the time of Abraham.

Does that interpretation fit in with the Bible? No.

Isaiah 45:5 states I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me

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 beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the father full of grace and truth.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1) Isaiah 45:5 makes it clear that there was only one God and no other supreme or supernatural being beside him.

2) John 1:1 makes it clear that the word (Jesus) was God.

3) John 1:14 makes it clear that God made himself into a human being (Jesus)

4: Revelation 13:8 shows us that Jesus existed in the mind of God because the plan of salvation, in other words, Jesus dying on the cross was a plan God had made before he created humanity as he was aware of the possibility of sin entering the world.

There is no denying that Jesus is God and that God is Jesus.

There is also no denying that Jesus is the father as given the above statement that would make absolutely no sense as God is the father.

John 8:19 states: “They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.””
‭‭

 

[farouk]

What I was saying is that if you google: who was the first pope?

It will come up St Peter and not Constantine

@Joshu@21 What Peter himself says in his First Epistle about being cleansed by the precious blood of Christ by faith in Him, is rather different from the works and ritual based series of rules that successive popes have promoted.

 

[Truther]

Well, no, not at all; they just don't obey it in the way you "think" it ought to be... but that's the problem: your thinking.

And the astounding thing is that in being so hung up on Acts 2:38, you totally disregard what Jesus Christ ~ see? I said His lovely name ~ said... even commanded... in Matthew 28:19. Do you hold Peter above Jesus? Who is your Lord, Truther? These are rhetorical questions, of course; I'm just making a point... strongly. :)


I'm not Catholic, and Catholicism does have it's problems, some of them very big, but this is ridiculous.


Since you seem to hold Peter in such high esteem, maybe you should remember ~ for your own sake ~ what the Lord told Peter (three times, actually) in Acts 10:15 ~ "What God has made clean, do not call common."

Grace and peace to you.

So, you think Peter per Acts 2:38 disobeyed Jesus per Matt 28:19, correct?

Wouldn't that implicate Jesus as not wise for giving Peter the keys in Matt 16?

Is Acts 2:38, maybe, the second denial of Jesus by Peter?

Why couldn't Jesus tell his future like the first time he denied Jesus?

 

[Truther]

Here is how Jesus forgave sins......


10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

 

[PinSeeker]

What BOL is trying to say is that we are in the old covenant too.

No, I don't think so, Truther. He's just saying is that baptism in the new covenant takes the place of circumcision in the old covenant. Maybe... I actually wouldn't say it quite that way, but rather that circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant before the advent of Jesus Christ, and since the advent of Jesus Christ, baptism has taken the place of circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. There's a lot more that could be said about that, as it's a pretty big subject, but that's sufficient for now. You can read what Paul says in Colossians 2:11-12, and I think you'll see it there.

He baptized babies as the old covenant circumcised them.

Right. See above.

...circumcision is of the heart in the NT...

I think BOL fully recognizes that, Truther; or at least he/she should. :) We should heed well what Paul says at the end of Romans 2, that "...no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter." So you're right, but what you don't seem to realize is that effectual baptism is also of the heart and by the Spirit, as John the Baptist tells us in Matthew 3, that Christ Himself "...baptize(s) (us) with the Holy Spirit and fire," and Paul recounts this himself, quoting that very scripture in Acts 11:16.

...one must make a conscious decision for a change of heart.

This is backwards, the heart drives our conscious decisions. As Ezekiel says, quoting God Himself:

"I (God) will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I (God) will cleanse you. And I (God) will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I (God) will put within you. And I (God) will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I (God) will put my (God's) Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my (God's) statutes and be careful to obey my (God's) rules. You shall dwell in the land that I (God) gave to your fathers, and you shall be my (God's) people, and I (God) will be your God. And I (God) will deliver you from all your uncleannesses."
[Ezekiel 36:25-29]​

This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God. Sola del gloria!

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

So, you think Peter per Acts 2:38 disobeyed Jesus per Matt 28:19, correct?

No, incorrect. We've talked about that before.

Wouldn't that implicate Jesus as not wise for giving Peter the keys in Matt 16?

Ah, another misconception... :) Peter represents us all in Matthew 16. Your question here actually puts you in the same boat of misunderstanding of what actually went on there as the Roman Catholic Church. Which is a bit funny, in a dark sort of way. Would you hold, too, that Peter is the rock on which Christ has built... is building... His Church? Because that would be terribly incorrect, too.

Is Acts 2:38, maybe, the second denial of Jesus by Peter?

Well I guess it would be the fourth. :) Unless, I guess, you're counting the three previous denials as one. But no, not at all. But that's kind of the irony of this whole thing, that you hold ~ inadvertently, I guess ~ that Peter somehow nullified what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19, which is most assuredly not the case.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Joshu@21]

Here is how Jesus forgave sins......

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Jesus is clearly saying here that he is the father and that the father is him.

That’s why he was able to forgive sins.

because he was literally God and literally the father and therefore had the authority to do such an act.

 

[Joshu@21]

Again. Paul cannot be giving the go ahead for babies to be baptised because Old Testament circumcision was a MALE ONLY practice.

Would it make any sense that Paul would use the example of a MALE ONLY Practice to teach that male and female babies are to be baptised? No.

 

[PinSeeker]

Paul cannot be giving the go ahead for babies to be baptised because Old Testament circumcision was a MALE ONLY practice.

Gender was never the relevant (except in the sense that females could not be circumcised because they do not have... well, you know. :)) And also that males were (or rather eventually would be) heads of their households. It was the sign and seal of the covenant, and since the advent of Jesus, baptism is that sign and seal of the covenant. And baptism is for men and all their households ~ so females included (as well as males and females of all ages, even infants) ~ as Peter says in Acts 2.

Would it make any sense that Paul would use the example of a MALE ONLY Practice to teach that male and female babies are to be baptised? No.

Yeah, again, not about gender, except that, regarding circumcision, males were (or rather eventually would be) the heads of their households. There's quite a bit of significance to that, but really beyond the point here. Baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant now, and is to be given ~ once ~ to all, regardless of gender.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[bbyrd009]

forced ritual baptism now, hmm

Well, what would you do in that situation? Would you acknowledge that the unborn baby is Sam or would you think "they're not calling that baby Sam"?

I'm at a loss as to what point you're trying to make here.

well, i initially just wanted to point out that Isaiah did not exactly call Jesus “Father,” but there is an interesting theory that Isaiah was creating a legend, based upon “what has been in the past is what will be in the future,” or previous “messiahs” iow, that might be built upon later. Ill see if i can dig it up, wasnt the abarim guy, not sure where i read it, some rabbi i think.

Jesus is clearly saying here that he is the father and that the father is him.

That’s why he was able to forgive sins.

because he was literally God and literally the father and therefore had the authority to do such an act.

i never got how people believe they do not have the authority to forgive sins?
I said “you are Elohim”
Forgive and you will be forgiven

 

[Truther]

No, I don't think so, Truther. He's just saying is that baptism in the new covenant takes the place of circumcision in the old covenant. Maybe... I actually wouldn't say it quite that way, but rather that circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant before the advent of Jesus Christ, and since the advent of Jesus Christ, baptism has taken the place of circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. There's a lot more that could be said about that, as it's a pretty big subject, but that's sufficient for now. You can read what Paul says in Colossians 2:11-12, and I think you'll see it there.


Right. See above.


I think BOL fully recognizes that, Truther; or at least he/she should. :) We should heed well what Paul says at the end of Romans 2, that "...no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter." So you're right, but what you don't seem to realize is that effectual baptism is also of the heart and by the Spirit, as John the Baptist tells us in Matthew 3, that Christ Himself "...baptize(s) (us) with the Holy Spirit and fire," and Paul recounts this himself, quoting that very scripture in Acts 11:16.


This is backwards, the heart drives our conscious decisions. As Ezekiel says, quoting God Himself:

"I (God) will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I (God) will cleanse you. And I (God) will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I (God) will put within you. And I (God) will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I (God) will put my (God's) Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my (God's) statutes and be careful to obey my (God's) rules. You shall dwell in the land that I (God) gave to your fathers, and you shall be my (God's) people, and I (God) will be your God. And I (God) will deliver you from all your uncleannesses."
[Ezekiel 36:25-29]​

This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God. Sola del gloria!

Grace and peace to you.

Repentance is making a conscious decision for a change of heart when God changes to heart. That’s a clarification of my statement.

 

[Truther]

No, incorrect. We've talked about that before.


Ah, another misconception... :) Peter represents us all in Matthew 16. Your question here actually puts you in the same boat of misunderstanding of what actually went on there as the Roman Catholic Church. Which is a bit funny, in a dark sort of way. Would you hold, too, that Peter is the rock on which Christ has built... is building... His Church? Because that would be terribly incorrect, too.


Well I guess it would be the fourth. :) Unless, I guess, you're counting the three previous denials as one. But no, not at all. But that's kind of the irony of this whole thing, that you hold ~ inadvertently, I guess ~ that Peter somehow nullified what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19, which is most assuredly not the case.

Grace and peace to you.

Do you teach and believe exactly what Peter taught and believed Per Acts 2?

 

[PinSeeker]

Repentance is making a conscious decision for a change of heart when God changes to heart. That’s a clarification of my statement.

Okay, well, because of the change of the heart. Which is effected by God, by His Spirit. Agree?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Do you teach and believe exactly what Peter taught and believed Per Acts 2?

Absolutely. But what Peter taught and believed in Acts 2:38 is not in such a wooden sense that you suppose it to be. And it's surely not a refutation of what Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 28:19.

Grace and peace to you.