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

[Truther]

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.

Google gospel?

 

[Truther]

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

No, your prospective role is to debunk Acts 2:38 and teach the fellows here that the name of the son per Matt 28:19 is "son".

Right, son?

Peter taught the name of the son per baptism was "son" or "Jesus"?

Well, son of somebody, what say you?

 

[user]

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.

Do you mean to say that his name was hijacked after his death by the RCC?

 

[user]

Google gospel?

You can google anything these days and find an article to support any position. We need to stay in the Bible for common ground.

 

[Truther]

You can google anything these days and find an article to support any position. We need to stay in the Bible for common ground.

Thank you!

I thought everyone knew that.

Our friend is obviously new to the internet.

 

[user]

Thank you!

I thought everyone knew that.

Our friend is obviously new to the internet.

Not everyone knew that. Breadofdeath quite often leaves the Bible for support of his debunked theologies.

 

[Truther]

Not everyone knew that. Breadofdeath quite often leaves the Bible for support of his debunked theologies.

Lol...I think he is a good 'ol boy.

I am glad he joins the thread for comic relief.:)

 

[user]

Lol...I think he is a good 'ol boy.

I am glad he joins the thread for comic relief.:)

LOL!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

You can google anything these days and find an article to support any position.
We need to stay in the Bible for common ground.

Thank you!
I thought everyone knew that.
Our friend is obviously new to the internet.

Not everyone knew that. Breadofdeath quite often leaves the Bible for support of his debunked theologies.

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 . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

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?

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

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.”

 

[user]

So show me a passage in Scripture that tells us HOW to baptize. Immersion only?

Matthew 3:16 And 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:

Acts 8:36 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?
[38] 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.
[39] And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

[user]

People like YOU who would keep infants from being Baptized

 

[Joshu@21]

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

Paul is not saying we can baptise babies. If you study the passage of scripture in Romans 2 Paul is addressing concerns about whether or not new MALE believers should be getting circumcised. He explains that they should no longer be concerned with circumcision because baptism replaces that.

Saying that babies can be baptised because Paul makes a connection between circumcision and baptism is a flawed statement because of:

1) The actual context of the passage of scripture (mentioned above)

2) Because Old Testament circumcision was a MALE ONLY practice.

Genesis 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring

Old Testament circumcision was a MALE ONLY practice. So how can you say that Paul is saying male and female babies should be getting baptised? If Paul was giving the go-ahead for babies to get baptised would it make any sense whatsoever that he would use the example of a MALE ONLY practice to back it up?

The New Testament order is always: The preaching of the gospel; faith in the gospel; then, baptism. Never once is there an example of baptism preceding faith as the norm to be followed. And there are no examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet unbelieving children of believing parents.

The Bible does not teach the trinity. Because the Bible never states that Jesus isn't the father or that God isn't the son.

Please explain this to me. If God is Jesus and Jesus is God, as we know from scripture (Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM and I and my father are one") then how can Jesus not be the father?

Saying that Jesus isn't the father is essentially saying that He is not God, because God is the Father.

Are you saying that not all of God dwells within Jesus? because the Bible says In Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

From what I have researched: "sola scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. It did not mean Scripture was the only authority."

There's a reason why this isn't in the Bible. Because it's absolutely nuts. How can any Christian believe that God's word isn't enough for the church? It's the word of God. Believing that you need some outside the Bible opinions on what the Church should believe and teach is essentially a slap in the face to God.

Accepting Jesus as personal Lord and saviour is a doctrine that was made by taking out one verse of the Bible whilst disregarding several others. The Bible is very clear that responding to the gospel isn't just a matter of saying you accept Jesus as your personal saviour.

I want to guess that by eternal security you mean "once saved always saved." No, the Bible definitely does not teach that. Otherwise, the Bible would have stopped at the book of Acts. Also, we can use a bit of common sense for that one. If we can't walk with God here on earth we shouldn't expect to be walking with him in eternity.

 

[Joshu@21]

Do you mean to say that his name was hijacked after his death by the RCC?

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]

Isaiah 9:6

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?

Are you saying that Jesus is not fully God?

Because the Bible says in Colossians 2:9: For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

 

[Joshu@21]

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

How would that be different?

If a husband tells you that his wife is pregnant and that they are going to call him Sam would you think "that unborn baby isn't named"? No. You'd be like "That unborn baby is Sam"

 

[bbyrd009]

How would that be different?

If a husband tells you that his wife is pregnant and that they are going to call him Sam would you think "that unborn baby isn't named"? No. You'd be like "That unborn baby is Sam"

well, that's up to you i guess :)

seems to me in that sense of the term, Isaiah would more likely be a "father" to Jesus though

 

[Joshu@21]

well, that's up to you i guess :)

seems to me in that sense of the term, Isaiah would more likely be a "father" to Jesus though

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.

 

[user]

Because Old Testament circumcision was a MALE ONLY practice.

And on that note, Breadofdeath suffers another humiliating defeat.

Welcome to the forum.