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

[Truther]

Show me a verse where Jesus says:
"Baptiuze ONLY the adults!"

CAN'T find it??
I didn't think so, Einstein . . .

When did your parents officially dismiss you as being their child?

Funny, my 34 and 32 year old son's are still our children that we love as such.

Catholics are cruel, huh?

 

[user]

Where's the Ctucifix or ANY other sign in this buidling that this is a Catholic church?
CONTEXT, please - or you'll forrce me to post equally-bogus pictures of wacky "Protestant" services . . . . . .

Perhaps the Mary Statue with the crown on her head, center screen. You guys just cant get away from her.

 

[user]

I am redefining protestantism per Acts 2:38, which banning Acts 2:38 from practice makes the RCC the mother of all protestants and the great whore of her rebellious co-protestant daughters.

I agree. The Protestants are the daughters of the mother catholic church, of which the mother is calling them home to be one big happy family with Mary at the helm. And, just like the dark ages, anyone opposed to this will be persecuted. And, I suppose this will be another "Mary" statue...

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[PinSeeker]

When do CHILDREN obey "repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins....".

a....8 days old?

B....terrible 2's?

C....adolescent to adulthood?

You continue to misunderstand Peter (in at least a couple of different ways) in Acts 2:38. The water baptism of men (from John the Baptist to today) is not about repentance, per se... Repentance is not a prerequisite to be baptized. Baptism ~ just as circumcision was in the Old Testament ~ is sign and seal of the promise of God in Christ Jesus, and is not to be denied of people of any age, even infants. More on that in a moment, but first, regarding repentance, we have to remember that true repentance from sin is a work of the Holy Spirit within each one of us; it is a spiritual gift, given to us by God and worked in us by His Spirit.

In his letter to the Romans, addressing the depravity of man, a doctrine for which the apostle had a very high regard, Paul writes, “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4). Paul’s point is a simple one, that repentance is a gift of God, an act that the Holy Spirit works in us resulting in an act that flows out of us. Although it is our act, it does not originate from within us. In fact, in our naturally stubborn, rebellious hearts the whole notion of repentance is foreign. Just as our righteousness is a foreign, or “alien,” righteousness from Christ, so is our repentance. It is granted to us by God Himself. We would not even conceive of such a thing left to ourselves. By His grace, God grants repentance to His adopted children whom He patiently disciplines: “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19). For even when our minds grow weary and our hearts doubt the promises of God, He remains faithful to His promises and patient toward His people in the church “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Circumcision itself was not a new practice that God introduced only to Abraham in Genesis 17. In fact, circumcision was an already-existing practice broadly used in the Ancient Near East (e.g. Egypt and Mesopotamia) sometimes as a puberty or prenuptial rite. It existed as early as 3,000 B.C., possibly originating in Mesopotamia, the region from which Abraham came. In Egypt, it was apparently reserved only for high caste individuals. While similar in general respects, these extra-biblical practices differed significantly from the prescribed practice of the Old Testament established in Genesis 17 and regulated through the Mosaic Law. Interestingly, while Egyptian circumcision seemingly involved only a dorsal incision ~ that is, a cutting of the foreskin along the top ~ Hebrew circumcision called for the complete removal of the foreskin. While the Egyptian version was administered strictly to high caste males as a puberty rite, Abrahamic circumcision was administered to all males from near infancy, including even proselytes. This is all very interesting, but the point is that circumcision, regardless of how it was done or what people group used it, was a common practice performed to set the people within the community apart from all other groups... to distinguish all within the community from every other community, from everyone else... to mark a person as belonging to one community and not to any other. So essentially, in prescribing the practice of circumcision to Abraham in Genesis 17 (and providing very specific directions to Abraham regarding how it was to be done), He was saying, "This is how you're going to visibly set my people apart from every other group of folks and everyone else out there, and here's how I want it done. This is the sign and seal of the promise.

Having said that, although circumcision was administered according to the command of God, it did not signify only blessedness; it also signified potential curse or blessing. And those who possessed the sign of the covenant while remaining covenant breakers would eventually be cut off from God’s people. In instances where circumcision did not signify the actual removal of sin from an individual because they did not act on the promises by faith, circumcision foreshadowed their removal from the presence of God and the people of God. Having developed the meaning of circumcision in its Old Testament context, we may now consider its correspondence to its New Testament analog baptism. This comparison has its legitimacy in the fact that these two great signs were the signifiers of membership in the covenant community. One could not belong to the covenant people without the sign in their respective redemptive epochs. But Paul makes all the more clear the legitimacy of this comparison when he credits baptism as the means of the believer’s ultimate circumcision.

"In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)

How is it that circumcision is fulfilled by baptism? Often it is asked, “Where in the New Testament are we commanded to baptize children?” While there are many ways of answering this question, it is the wrong question. We must see the fundamental continuity between the Old and New Testaments such that the covenant of grace as promised in Genesis 3 is administered through the various epochs of redemptive history until the fullness of time in the coming of Jesus Christ. The New Testament indicates that the sign of baptism functions in the same way as circumcision ~ a sign of potential accursedness or blessedness dependent upon whether God’s promises are met at some point with faith in its recipient. In the case of infants, it is a calling by the parents on the promise of God to work through them by His Spirit at the appointed time ~ whenever that may be, at whatever age ~ to work repentance and faith, and thus salvation, in the child. This was true of circumcision in the Old Testament, and it is true of water baptism, which has replaced circumcision in the New Testament. Yes, we are to read the Old in the light of the New, but the New is completion of the Old Testament story.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Around the 14 year of age, they had time to read the Gospel, and to be taught, after this you can baptize them:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Cool - can you show me that verse?
You know - the ones about the 14-year olds?

I can only guess that you don't have kids . . .

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Ummmmm, in post #216 - I gavce you SEVERAL verses that show men being called BOTH Father AND Teacher - and you failed to address them.

WHY is that, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Perhaps the Mary Statue with the crown on her head, center screen. You guys just cant get away from her.

On other words - you have NO intelligent answer.
Pretty much what I expected - given the idiocy of your other posts. . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

When do CHILDREN obey "repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins....".
a....8 days old?
B....terrible 2's?
C....adolescent to adulthood?

Better question:
HOW did the 8-day-old children in the OT decide to enter the Covenant with God?

Bonus question: when did you cease to be the child of your parents in their mind?

Never.
You are ALWAYS your parent's child, Einstein.

 

[BreadOfLife]

When did your parents officially dismiss you as being their child?

Never.
They both died and I was STILL their child - and STILL am.

Funny, my 34 and 32 year old son's are still our children that we love as such.
Catholics are cruel, huh?

So, in other words, Einstein - you have NNO intelligent response for the question I asked in my last post . . .

Shoe me where anyone in the Bible says: "Baptiuze ONLY the adults!"
Chapter and Verse please . . .

 

[Truther]

Better question:
HOW did the 8-day-old children in the OT decide to enter the Covenant with God?

Never.
You are ALWAYS your parent's child, Einstein.

Okay, since you are not an infant and are a child of someone by your own admission, you qualify for Acts 2:38-39.

Just repent of your RCC ideas and take the remission of your sins plunge like a good Catholic.

 

[Truther]

Never.
They both died and I was STILL their child - and STILL am.

So, in other words, Einstein - you have NNO intelligent response for the question I asked in my last post . . .

Shoe me where anyone in the Bible says: "Baptiuze ONLY the adults!"
Chapter and Verse please . . .

By your own admission...

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.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children(BOL INCLUDED), and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


...however, if you don't repent of your rebellious Catholic ways, you should not obey the rest of Acts 2:38.

Phillip would not baptize you under such disobedient unbelief.

 

[Daniel L.]

HOW did the 8-day-old children in the OT decide to enter the Covenant with God?

The old covenant only commanded circumcision and not the teaching:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

SEVERAL verses that show men being called BOTH Father AND Teacher

You can call your father after the flesh, "father", because fathers are only fathers after the flesh. What you can't do is call a man "father", who is not your father after the flesh, because after the Spirit is only One Father and He is in Heaven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The old covenant only commanded circumcision and not the teaching:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

You're missing the point.

A "Covenant" by definition is a solemn AGREEMENT between 2 or more parties.
My question was:
HOW did the 8-day-old children in the OT decide to enter the Covenant with God?

If you can't answer the question - just say so.

You can call your father after the flesh, "father", because fathers are only fathers after the flesh. What you can't do is call a man "father", who is not your father after the flesh, because after the Spirit is only One Father and He is in Heaven.

Your failure is complete because I gave you Scriptural examples of "Father" beinbg used in a SPIRITUAL sense - not "fleahly".
- Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- Pauol said to the Corinthians: For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

And don't forget - Jesus ALSO said not to call men, "Teacher".
- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
- "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
- "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERs" (1 Cor. 12:28).

So, we're left with only TWO possibiolities here:
1. Jesus, Paul and Stephen are LIARS.
2. You'ree just really, really ignorant when it comes to Scriipture.

I think that #2 is the more plausible choice . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay, since you are not an infant and are a child of someone by your own admission, you qualify for Acts 2:38-39.

Just repent of your RCC ideas and take the remission of your sins plunge like a good Catholic.

By your own admission...

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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children(BOL INCLUDED), and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

...however, if you don't repent of your rebellious Catholic ways, you should not obey the rest of Acts 2:38.

Phillip would not baptize you under such disobedient unbelief.

Since you've run from this TWICE now - I'm going to ask you a THIRD time:
Can you Shoe me where anyone in the Bible says: "Baptiuze ONLY the adults!"?
Chapter and Verse please . . .

Why are you SO afraid to answer this question?
And, by the way, I AM included in Acts 2:38-39 - and so is my infant grandson . . .

 

[user]

On other words - you have NO intelligent answer.
Pretty much what I expected - given the idiocy of your other posts. . .

You want proof it is a Catholic church ... center of the screen is your Mary goddess with her crown. Now go say ten Hail Marys...

 

[Daniel L.]

A "Covenant" by definition is a solemn AGREEMENT between 2 or more parties.

It was an agreement between Father and Abraham. Abraham is the one who should circumcise everyone.

ignorant

Abraham is their father after the flesh, so it is fine for them to call Abraham their father. But calling someone father, when he is not your father after the flesh is wrong, because after the Spirit there is only One Father and He is in Heaven.

As for calling them teachers, Paul is the only one who does this, maybe it's because he wasn't there to listen when the Teacher said:

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

As, for me I will trust in the Greater Witness here, which is the Witness from Messiah my Teacher.

 

[Truther]

Since you've run from this TWICE now - I'm going to ask you a THIRD time:
Can you Shoe me where anyone in the Bible says: "Baptiuze ONLY the adults!"?
Chapter and Verse please . . .

Why are you SO afraid to answer this question?
And, by the way, I AM included in Acts 2:38-39 - and so is my infant grandson . . .

Sure...

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you .....


Was Peter speaking to adults or infants?

Think hard.

 

[user]

Sure...
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you .....

Was Peter speaking to adults or infants?

Think hard.

LOL!!!

Another crash and burn for BreadOfLife

 

[Marymog]

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.

Thanks user.

Neither of those passages say they was immersed. We can presume or assume they were but the wording of the passage does NOT say they were immersed. It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan”. But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” According to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion. A historical Christian document called The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. It said that pouring water three times upon the head was acceptable for baptism. Ancient Christian mosaics also show pouring for baptism. So, in review, neither Scripture nor the historical written practice of NT Christians nor the art work of the early Christianity support the immersion ONLY practice that your men have taught you, however immersion is preferable.

Look at those passages again and ask yourself: Can a person go "into" water and "come up out of the water" without being fully immersed by the water? (the answer is yes)

Mary

 

[Marymog]

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?

Jokes of the day for Wednesday, 09 March 2022 | Jokes of the day

 

[Marymog]

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.

Acts 2:38

 

[Truther]

Acts 2:38

The name of the son is Acts 2:38?

Does saying the name of Jesus at baptisms make the Catholic tremble?

I am starting to think so these days.