Trust me, EVERYBODY knows -- on earth and in Heaven -- that when a Catholic priest baptizes in the name of "the Son" it is a reference to Jesus Christ.
What is the purpose of infant baptism?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That's true, "Jesus" is the name of the son -- but the reference in either case is to Jesus. If you are suggesting that the actual verbiage "Jesus Christ" in the baptismal formulation is an absolute essential element of the ritual, like some magical incantation, all I can say is, that type of barren formalism is why Jesus railed against the Pharisees! To do something "in the name of" X is equally effective without utterance of X's proper name, as long as the same individual is unambiguously referenced.
Jesus is the least we can say verbally. Whatsoever we do in Word or deed we are to do all in the name of Jesus. Baptism is both word and deed.
And if you think baptism is ineffective if "the Son" is substituted for "Jesus Christ," you are elevating form over substance, just like the Pharisees. Don't do that.
Whatever we do, we must do in the name of Jesus Christ. That means speaking his name. If you don’t speak his name, everything you’re doing is ineffective when it comes to the work of his Kingdom.
Since the Catholics and her daughters run around praying saying Jesus and not son…This should tell you that it is weird that they have a Joe Biden moment and think the name son is son per Matthew 28:19.
It is a scam. Recognize a scam when you see it. It’s an attack on Acts 2:38.
It is a scam. Recognize a scam when you see it. It’s an attack on Acts 2:38.
I'm the last guy around here to declare that Matt. 28:19 is an accurate quote. But no Catholic -- I'll go further: nobody on the planet -- thinks "the name of son is son." Not per common sense. Not per Matt. 28:19. Not per anything. (Note that τοῦ Υἱοῦ in Matt. 28:19 is genitive, not nominative. Are you suggesting that this grammar was somehow lost on the Catholic Church when it decided that the formulation in Matt. 28:19 should be adopted?)
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,038
- 3,465
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I don’t know if it’s that you’re just not that bright – or if you’re a blatant liar.
I think it’s a little of BOTH. In either case – you’re a one-trick pony. BOTH of these issues can be summed up in your LAST idiotic sentence above in RED . . .
As I schooled you earlier – there is no such thing as the “Roman” Catholic Church.
As I indicated above – you don’t appear to mentally capable to handle this, but that’s YOUR problem.
As for your obsession with Acts 2:38 – that whole argument is based on your total ignorance of the idiom. “In the name of”..
Jesus Himself gave the formula for Baptism in Matt. 28.
Matt. 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
When Peter says to be Baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” for the remission of sin – THIS is what he is referring to, Einstein.
Get a clue . . .
Of course they don’t think the name of the son is son. But if they admit that the name of the son is Jesus per Matthew 28:19, then they have to baptize in the name of Jesus exclusively like Peter did and all of the disciples did in the book of Acts. This is why nobody will openly admit that the name of the son is Jesus per Matthew 28:19.
I have posted a thread on this forum and several other forums that’s titled this… “What is the name of the son per Matthew 28:19?
Every time I posted this specific thread it crashed and burned. Almost nobody would say Jesus. It is really weird.
What is the name of the son? Jesus. What is the name of the son per Matt. 28:19? Sorry, Matt. 28:19 doesn't tell us, as it contains no proper names. But since everyone knows the son's name is Jesus, this is immaterial, and use of the Matthean formula is not at odds with Acts 2:38. That's the point I have been trying to make.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,038
- 3,465
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
What did Jesus say to fo in Matt. 28:19?
ONE more time, Eintein . . .
According to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange:
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding: Old English nama, noma "name, REPUTATION," from Proto-Germanic *namon
(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").
We've all experienced the power of namedropping in our lives. People respect us and our opinions if they believe we are connected to someone with GREATER REPUTATION AND AUTHORITY.
In all cultures, people of authority have always lent their REPUTATION and their AUTHORITY to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations. The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.
English Reports Annotated - Pages 1505-2672, 1505, page 2048:
...an action on a board given to trustees of an industrial society before the act may, after registration under the act, be brought in the name of the newly -incorporated body.
“In the name of” meaning:
Macmillan Dictionary
1. representing someone or something
2. using the authority given by someone or something
Collins Dictionary
1. in appeal or reference to
2. by the authority of; as the representative of
Idioms.TheReferenceDictionary.com
1. Based on the AUTHORITY of someone or something. We proclaim these things in the name of God. In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.
Thesaurus.com
- through - at the hand of
- supported by - through the agency of
- via - with
- through the medium of
- under the aegis of
- with the assistance of
Acts 2:38 = by the AUTHORITY of Jesus Christ.
Why are you being so mean, @BOL? Sarcastically calling @Truther "Einstein" -- and suggesting he is a liar -- reveals more about you than about him. Please stop. I agree with you that he is mistaken in his analysis of the interplay between Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19. But we have all been mistaken about things in our lives. And I suspect he probably meant to say something a little different - in which case, his "mistake" is being inarticulate. Why demean him over it?
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,038
- 3,465
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
How long have you been on this forum?
There’s no “mistake” here - just a mission to spread lies about the Church and the Scripturees. He's been corre ted repeatedly by just about every Christian on this board.
This guy has been here for years spouting the same manure over and over again. It doesn’t matter if you prove to hm that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about – he just continues his idiotic tirades.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who purposely spread lies.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Wrong. A valid baptism requires the liturgical formula in Matthew 28.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
These words have always been the practice of Christians everywhere at all times, by Orthodox, Catholics and most Protestants. That partly explains why most non-Catholic baptisms are valid in the eyes of the CC. Using the correct formula given by Jesus Himself is a valid baptism. That has not changed for 2000 years in most of Christianity.
Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Here, Peter is not being disobedient to the Commission in Mathew 28:19 because he is not baptizing anyone when he said this. He is simply saying you need baptism. He didn't need to articulate the instructions given in Matthew 28:19 because Peter and the Apostles knew the correct liturgical formula for baptism. Using Acts 2:38 to "disprove" a valid baptism is an abuse of Scripture.
One must read the Epistles in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.
All these years, and you are still engaging with him? Wow. Obviously you aren't going to convince him that he's wrong. So what's the point? If it's to use him as a foil to make your points to others on this forum, I'd say your tone is a hindrance rather than an aid to that.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
True charity cannot tolerate error. Lot's of members don't like BofL's "tone", because repetitive lies are a dangerous threat to the faith of uninformed readers. BofL's "tone" is firm because the skulls of anti-Catholic liars is so thick. Repetitive lies is the rule of propaganda. The feeble tactic is all too common in these boards and needs to be exposed for what they are: LIES.
Attachments
Last edited:
Behold
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
