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

[Joshu@21]

Hi @Joshu@21

God in Three Persons is strongly present in Scripture, not least in Matthew 28.

No. what is strongly present in scripture is that there is only one God.

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not three distinct beings but rather the same person. When you say things like, the father is not the son, the father is not the Holy Spirit all you're doing is contradicting the Bible.

Isaiah calls Jesus the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6. Was Isaiah wrong to say that Jesus is the father? No. Because Jesus is God and God is Jesus.

The trinity doctrine was invented after the Bible was written. Nowhere in the Bible is the word trinity or triune used. Nowhere in the scriptures does God specifically say that he is three different people. But there are plenty of scriptures that say that God is one.

If you study Church history you would find that the reason the trinity doctrine was invented in the first place was that it appealed more to the Romans who were more accustomed to believing that there was more than one God.

Also, if you're going to say that the trinity is used to explain that God manifested himself in three different ways then perhaps you should stop and consider the fact that he manifested himself in all kinds of ways in the Old Testament. Should all the other ways be added to the equation of the trinity? No.

God is one.

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.

I never said that people were getting baptised in order to become believers. Also, the fact that this verse of scriptures shows us that those who were baptised had "gladly received" or in other words accepted the salvation message is visible proof that:

1) There were no babies that were baptised, as they could not have been able to "gladly receive" that message.
2) No babies would ever have been baptised in the Bible. Because this verse highlights the fact that the Gospel is something that is to be "gladly received" Not forced onto an individual.

 

[farouk]

Frankly, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are deeply present in Scripture; e.g., John's Gospel, Romans 8, John's First Epistle, etc.

 

[Truther]

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

How can the first Pope be Peter when the RCC does not obey Acts 2:38???

The first Pope is Constantine.

 

[Truther]

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!!!

No, I only need my Bible to consult with.

Wacky commentators that defy and deny Acts 2:38 have no scriptural advice for me, since they are not saved.

Birds of a feather flock together, right Catholic?

 

[Marymog]

No, I only need my Bible to consult with.

Wacky commentators that defy and deny Acts 2:38 have no scriptural advice for me, since they are not saved.

Birds of a feather flock together, right Catholic?

You crack me up Truther. If anyone does not adhere to your interpretation of Acts 2:38 then they are not saved. Is that right, Protestant man?

Jokes of the day for Saturday, 05 March 2022 | Jokes of the day

 

[Truther]

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 . . .

Children are indeed allowed to repent and be baptized when they feel they are ready per acts 2:38.

We don't force infants to obey Acts 2:38 at squirt gun point.

 

[Truther]

You crack me up Truther. If anyone does not adhere to your interpretation of Acts 2:38 then they are not saved. Is that right, Protestant man?

Jokes of the day for Saturday, 05 March 2022 | Jokes of the day

This interpretation?...

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If you protest this method of salvation to the 3000 at Pentecost, you are a protest-ant against Peter.

Know your role.

 

[Joshu@21]

How can the first Pope be Peter when the RCC does not obey Acts 2:38???

The first Pope is Constantine.

The first Pope is Peter. You can google that.

But the fact that Peter is considered to be the first pope is proof that the catholic church has strayed away from the teachings of the early church.

Peter never spoke about God being triune. Peter who was a Jewish man would have been taught the Shema: Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear Oh Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD.

Peter knew and believed that God was one.

 

[Truther]

The first Pope is the leader that did away with Acts 2:38... Constantine

 

[Marymog]

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.

Hey Joshu,

You are the one who said if it's not in Scripture then it shouldn't be done. So, back up your words: Where in Scripture does it give "an age where they understand who Jesus is and what he did for them"? Also, Romans 10 has NOTHING to do with baptism. Can we just stick to Scripture passages that refer to baptism since we are talking about baptism?

You said there were no babies in the families that were baptized. I would like to stick to your statement that if it's not in Scripture.....So back up your words and please show me in Scripture the passage that says there were no babies in those families that were baptized.

Yup, you are right. Scripture does have some passages on how to baptize: with water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I want to stick to your statement that if it's not in Scripture....So show me a passage in Scripture that tells us HOW to baptize. Immersion only? Do we say those words before, after or during the baptism? Scripture is silent on this just like it is on babies. So how do you KNOW how to baptize? And FYI baptizo does not mean immerse only...but that is a discussion for another day.

Paul equates circumcision to baptism. Circumcision was done to babies sooooo Paul DOES equate baptism and circumcision.

Mary

 

[Joshu@21]

The first Pope is the leader that did away with Acts 2:38... Constantine

My friend. You can google this: who was the first pope? It will come up St Peter.

Now obviously that isn't proof that Peter believed what Catholocism teaches now but rather it is proof that the Catholic church has strayed away from the teachings of the early church.

 

[Marymog]

This interpretation?...

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If you protest this method of salvation to the 3000 at Pentecost, you are a protest-ant against Peter.

Know your role.

Lol...My role is to destroy the false teachings you promote on this website. I have done that pretty well.....

 

[bbyrd009]

?

hi josh, mark here
you might notice that your reply is mingled in with…farouk’s, i think it was? makes it hard to quote you for comment :)
ntmy though, and best of luck with that!

 

[Joshu@21]

Hey Joshu,

You are the one who said if it's not in Scripture then it shouldn't be done. So, back up your words: Where in Scripture does it give "an age where they understand who Jesus is and what he did for them"? Also, Romans 10 has NOTHING to do with baptism. Can we just stick to Scripture passages that refer to baptism since we are talking about baptism?

You said there were no babies in the families that were baptized. I would like to stick to your statement that if it's not in Scripture.....So back up your words and please show me in Scripture the passage that says there were no babies in those families that were baptized.

That is a conclusion we can come to based on how Luke writes the book of Acts.

He is very clear that those who were baptised had "gladly received" the word.

Act 2:41: Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:36-38: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

"gladly received" is the same as accepted. Is a baby able to gladly receive the gospel? Are they able to make the decision to respond to the Gospel? No.

Does Luke spell everything out in the book of Acts? Does he always say "they were baptised in Jesus name?" No. Because he had already written about it so much in the book of Acts that eventually it comes to a point where he assumes that the reader will know that people were being baptised in Jesus name. Do you think Luke would have stopped and thought? "Hm, I should probably put in here that babies were not being baptised?" No. As he had already written countless times that it was those who believed that were being baptised. He would not have felt the need to spell out that babies were not being baptised in the same way that he would not have felt the need to continuously write "they were baptised in Jesus name" every time someone was baptised.

You have said that Romans 10 has nothing to do with baptism. But it clearly does as Romans 10 is about Pauls's longing for Israel to respond to the Gospel. Is baptism not a part of responding to the gospel?

The Bible teaches that it is.

Yup, you are right. Scripture does have some passages on how to baptize: with water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I want to stick to your statement that if it's not in Scripture....So show me a passage in Scripture that tells us HOW to baptize. Immersion only? Do we say those words before, after or during the baptism? Scripture is silent on this just like it is on babies. So how do you KNOW how to baptize? And FYI baptizo does not mean immerse only...but that is a discussion for another day.

This is how we are to baptise:

1) By full immersion. Yes, "baptiso" does not mean immerse only it also means to dip or to plunge which are essentially the same thing. It does not mean to sprinkle.

2) By saying "I baptise you in the name of Jesus." It's the name Jesus that holds authority. Remember, authority lies within a name. name and authority are used interchangeably in the Bible. An example would be in Exodus when God says not to take his name in vain or in other words not to do something evil and say you are doing it under his authority.

Paul equates circumcision to baptism. Circumcision was done to babies sooooo Paul DOES equate baptism and circumcision.

Yes, Paul makes a link between circumcision and baptism. No, he is not saying babies can be baptised. Remember Paul is writing about his longing for Israel to respond to the Gospel.

Romans 10:14 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?

Paul is not giving the go-ahead for babies to be baptised because he understands that understanding who Jesus is and placing faith in him are essential components of what is required for one to be able to respond to the gospel.

 

[Joshu@21]

Mark here

Hey Mark

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.

This verse of scripture is not saying that Jesus is the father as that would be contradictory to scripture. Remember Isaiah calls Jesus the everlasting Father.

 

[bbyrd009]

???

"Remember Isaiah calls Jesus the everlasting Father."

ah, dont think so, wadr. "Messiah" does not have to mean Jesus, necessarily
esp to Isaiah :)

 

[Joshu@21]

"Remember Isaiah calls Jesus the everlasting Father."

ah, dont think so, wadr. "Messiah" does not have to mean Jesus, necessarily
esp to Isaiah :)

I can't wrap my head around what you've just said.

Firstly, Isaiah does not use the word messiah in that passage of scripture.

Secondly, Isaiah foreshadows Jesus several times throughout his book.

And look what Matthew 8:17 says.

Matthew 8:17 states: This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”

You're statement "Messiah does not have to mean Jesus." Are you trying to say that Jesus isn't the messiah?

Isaiah 9:6-7 is a foreshadowing of Jesus. There are several others in the Old Testament like in Psalm 2.

 

[tigger 2]

Isaiah 9:6

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best-known Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)

to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;

[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [1]“quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]“For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to some trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

 

[bbyrd009]

I can't wrap my head around what you've just said.

Firstly, Isaiah does not use the word messiah in that passage of scripture.

Secondly, Isaiah foreshadows Jesus several times throughout his book.

And look what Matthew 8:17 says.

Matthew 8:17 states: This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”

You're statement "Messiah does not have to mean Jesus." Are you trying to say that Jesus isn't the messiah?

Isaiah 9:6-7 is a foreshadowing of Jesus. There are several others in the Old Testament like in Psalm 2.

ya, on the run here, sorry; Isaiah says that "He will be called everlasting Father," so diff from Isaiah calling Jesus "Father" i think

 

[Truther]

Hey Joshu,....
Yup, you are right. Scripture does have some passages on how to baptize: with water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I want to stick to your statement that if it's not in Scripture....So show me a passage in Scripture that tells us HOW to baptize. Immersion only? Do we say those words before, after or during the baptism? Scripture is silent on this just like it is on babies. So how do you KNOW how to baptize? And FYI baptizo does not mean immerse only...but that is a discussion for another day.

Paul equates circumcision to baptism. Circumcision was done to babies sooooo Paul DOES equate baptism and circumcision.

Mary

What is the name of the son that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize in per Matt 28:19?

A....son.

B...Jesus.

C...George?

No hints this time.