PROVING THE TRINITY IS A BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Have you not ever wondered why there is a discrepancy ? One verse speaks to a baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. While Matthew 28:19 speaks of Baptism using the triune titles?
Those are post-apostolic interpolations entered into the Bible around 2nd to 3rd centuries as per Matthew 28:19 and as recorded by Eusebius. And for the express purpose of supporting that interpolation that is today known as the Trinity doctrine.
Think about it. Old Testament, right? God we know has said there, hear oh Israel our God our God is one. God has said, I Am. And beside me there is no other. And in another verse, there is no other savior. All those many verses that have God in his own words affirming one! He is one. He is only. He is all.
Did he forget he is triune come the new covenant? When Jesus said, I and my father are one, did Jesus misspeak?
I think we need to take a moment in Bible studies and realize not all that is there between front and back covers is there to be taken at face value. It arrived as the closed canon by decree. Men had their hand in compiling the Holy Bible. Do you notice what is missing on its cover and spine? Any version you choose save for the most contemporary 21st century. "God's words". Why doesn't the Bible have instead embossed on its cover from the beginning, "God's Words" ? Instead it is titled, holy book.
Men had everything to do with what comes to us in printed verse. And if you don't believe that just remember, only one example here, the 1611 King James Version included the Apocrypha. Today's KJV does not. The KJV in its first printing did have the triune reference in Matthew 28:19. But that came after the Nicene council.
Speaking of KJV and in relation to our talk concerning Matthew 28:19, recall Luke24:47? "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. "
But back in Matthew 28:19 Baptism after repentance and for remission of sins should be performed in three names? Father, son, holy spirit?
Source Link, excerpt below. *If that link does not open please let me know and I'll paste the article in full.
Introduction
Below are many historical quotes from theologians and other writers that heavily indicate that Matthew 28:19 has been altered.
It must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers” wanted it to become.)
This is what my research revealed. Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”
Does Matthew 28:19 Have Added Text?
The following excerpts come from an unaltered book of Matthew that could have even been the original or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Thus Eusebius informs us of the actual words Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19.
“With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)
“But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157)
“Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” — (Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159)
In Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read, “relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
And in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read, “Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates between Arias and the pagan view of Athanasius that became the trinity doctrine. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
Below is Matthew 28:19 from the King James Bible.
Matthew 28:19 “Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Those are post-apostolic interpolations entered into the Bible around 2nd to 3rd centuries as per Matthew 28:19 and as recorded by Eusebius. And for the express purpose of supporting that interpolation that is today known as the Trinity doctrine.
Think about it. Old Testament, right? God we know has said there, hear oh Israel our God our God is one. God has said, I Am. And beside me there is no other. And in another verse, there is no other savior. All those many verses that have God in his own words affirming one! He is one. He is only. He is all.
Did he forget he is triune come the new covenant? When Jesus said, I and my father are one, did Jesus misspeak?
I think we need to take a moment in Bible studies and realize not all that is there between front and back covers is there to be taken at face value. It arrived as the closed canon by decree. Men had their hand in compiling the Holy Bible. Do you notice what is missing on its cover and spine? Any version you choose save for the most contemporary 21st century. "God's words". Why doesn't the Bible have instead embossed on its cover from the beginning, "God's Words" ? Instead it is titled, holy book.
Men had everything to do with what comes to us in printed verse. And if you don't believe that just remember, only one example here, the 1611 King James Version included the Apocrypha. Today's KJV does not. The KJV in its first printing did have the triune reference in Matthew 28:19. But that came after the Nicene council.
Speaking of KJV and in relation to our talk concerning Matthew 28:19, recall Luke24:47? "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. "
But back in Matthew 28:19 Baptism after repentance and for remission of sins should be performed in three names? Father, son, holy spirit?
Source Link, excerpt below. *If that link does not open please let me know and I'll paste the article in full.
Introduction
Below are many historical quotes from theologians and other writers that heavily indicate that Matthew 28:19 has been altered.
It must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers” wanted it to become.)
This is what my research revealed. Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”
Does Matthew 28:19 Have Added Text?
The following excerpts come from an unaltered book of Matthew that could have even been the original or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Thus Eusebius informs us of the actual words Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19.
“But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157)
“Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” — (Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159)
In Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read, “relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
And in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read, “Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates between Arias and the pagan view of Athanasius that became the trinity doctrine. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
Below is Matthew 28:19 from the King James Bible.
Matthew 28:19 “Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
-
1
- Show all
What your doing shrume is what's called in "logic" making an argument from silence. I'll give you a good example of what I mean. Show me in the book of Acts where anyone came out and said that Jesus Christ is God? Since you cannot show it does that mean that Jesus Christ is not God? I mean he is identified in the gospel of John as God at John 20:28.
In other words, no one can prove a negative. Only things that "HAPPEN" can even possibly leave evidence of themselves. Or to put it another way, your conclusion (that there is no record in the book of Acts of people carrying out Matthew 28:19) does not mean it did not happen. What did the Apostle John say at John 20:30, "many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK;"
Since you were not there when Jesus did these other signs does that mean what John said is not true? The same thing can be said about the book of Acts which btw is a narrative of events and not a "didactic."
Check out the following site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
In other words, no one can prove a negative. Only things that "HAPPEN" can even possibly leave evidence of themselves. Or to put it another way, your conclusion (that there is no record in the book of Acts of people carrying out Matthew 28:19) does not mean it did not happen. What did the Apostle John say at John 20:30, "many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK;"
Since you were not there when Jesus did these other signs does that mean what John said is not true? The same thing can be said about the book of Acts which btw is a narrative of events and not a "didactic."
Check out the following site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silenceIN GOD THE SON,
bluto
The problem is that with you I never know what you mean. That's why I ask the question? I don't want to "assume" what you may mean. Even here instead of answering one way or another you ask me another question? "Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 12? What's your answer?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Your question about Baptism made necessary the question asking if you have read the entire chapter in Paul's epistle? Context in Exegesis is always the issue. One verse doesn't "say it all". One verse is one among many that give a prescribed teaching concerning a divine truth.
That's why I asked if you had read the whole chapter.
What your doing shrume is what's called in "logic" making an argument from silence. I'll give you a good example of what I mean. Show me in the book of Acts where anyone came out and said that Jesus Christ is God? Since you cannot show it does that mean that Jesus Christ is not God? I mean he is identified in the gospel of John as God at John 20:28.
In other words, no one can prove a negative. Only things that "HAPPEN" can even possibly leave evidence of themselves. Or to put it another way, your conclusion (that there is no record in the book of Acts of people carrying out Matthew 28:19) does not mean it did not happen. What did the Apostle John say at John 20:30, "many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK;"
Since you were not there when Jesus did these other signs does that mean what John said is not true? The same thing can be said about the book of Acts which btw is a narrative of events and not a "didactic." Check out the following site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
In other words, no one can prove a negative. Only things that "HAPPEN" can even possibly leave evidence of themselves. Or to put it another way, your conclusion (that there is no record in the book of Acts of people carrying out Matthew 28:19) does not mean it did not happen. What did the Apostle John say at John 20:30, "many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK;"
Since you were not there when Jesus did these other signs does that mean what John said is not true? The same thing can be said about the book of Acts which btw is a narrative of events and not a "didactic."
Check out the following site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silenceIN GOD THE SON,
bluto
There are many other things to talk about.
God bless.
As far as God is concerned saying something once should be quite enough. However the Didache from the 2nd century, plus Justin Martyr from the 2nd century have recorded Mathew 28:19 as the standard proclamation at baptism.
THE DIDACHE CHAPTER 7
(1) Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.
(2) If you do not have running water, baptize [baptizon] in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.
(3) If you do not have either, pour out [ekcheo] water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
(4) Before the baptism [baptizomenos] the one baptizing [baptizon] and the one being baptized [baptizomenos] are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized [baptizomenon] to fast beforehand a day or two.
*********************************************
St. Justin Martyr (100–165) was a second-century Christian apologist and one of our earliest testimonies to the worship of the Early Church. A pagan convert, he died a Christian martyr in Rome. In St. Justin’s First Apology (ca. 150), he writes regarding Christian Baptism:
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
THE DIDACHE CHAPTER 7
(1) Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.
(2) If you do not have running water, baptize [baptizon] in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.
(3) If you do not have either, pour out [ekcheo] water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
(4) Before the baptism [baptizomenos] the one baptizing [baptizon] and the one being baptized [baptizomenos] are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized [baptizomenon] to fast beforehand a day or two.
*********************************************
St. Justin Martyr (100–165) was a second-century Christian apologist and one of our earliest testimonies to the worship of the Early Church. A pagan convert, he died a Christian martyr in Rome. In St. Justin’s First Apology (ca. 150), he writes regarding Christian Baptism:
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
As far as God is concerned saying something once should be quite enough. However the Didache from the 2nd century, plus Justin Martyr from the 2nd century have recorded Mathew 28:19 as the standard proclamation at baptism.
THE DIDACHE CHAPTER 7
(1) Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.
(2) If you do not have running water, baptize [baptizon] in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.
(3) If you do not have either, pour out [ekcheo] water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
(4) Before the baptism [baptizomenos] the one baptizing [baptizon] and the one being baptized [baptizomenos] are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized [baptizomenon] to fast beforehand a day or two.
*********************************************
St. Justin Martyr (100–165) was a second-century Christian apologist and one of our earliest testimonies to the worship of the Early Church. A pagan convert, he died a Christian martyr in Rome. In St. Justin’s First Apology (ca. 150), he writes regarding Christian Baptism:
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
THE DIDACHE CHAPTER 7
(1) Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.
(2) If you do not have running water, baptize [baptizon] in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.
(3) If you do not have either, pour out [ekcheo] water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
(4) Before the baptism [baptizomenos] the one baptizing [baptizon] and the one being baptized [baptizomenos] are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized [baptizomenon] to fast beforehand a day or two.
*********************************************
St. Justin Martyr (100–165) was a second-century Christian apologist and one of our earliest testimonies to the worship of the Early Church. A pagan convert, he died a Christian martyr in Rome. In St. Justin’s First Apology (ca. 150), he writes regarding Christian Baptism:
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
And another question: Do you believe water baptism is necessary to be saved?
Why would you get banned for responding to the fallacy of an argument from silence? Btw, I see you said the following: "And another question: Do you believe water baptism is necessary to be saved?" My answer to that question is "No." There are literally thousands of reasons why some people are unable to be water baptized for salvation. One common one is a death bed confession of Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Now, I don't mean the argument I've heard a hundred times that a person who thinks their ready to die will confess Jesus as their Savior sort of as an insurance policy type of thing. I'm talking about serious people actually facing death and coming to the conclusion there are sinners in need of salvation.
Plus, you have a Biblical reason why you don't have to be baptized to be saved. Look at Acts 10 starting at vs44, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. Vs45, And the circumcised believers/the Jews who had come with Peter were amazed, (why), because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.
Vs46, For (or because) they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, vs47, Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT just as we did, can he?" Vs48, Then he ordered them to be baptized in the name (or in the authority) of Jesus Christ."
Please notice the order of events in this model. They received the Holy Spirit first, and then they were water baptized. And in regards to Matthew 28:19 look at what vs18 says, "And Jesus came up and spoke to them/the disciples saying, "ALL AUTHORITY has been give to Me in heaven and on earth. Vs19, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing (who, disciples are already followers of Jesus Christ) baptizing them in the name (not names) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Baptism is the initiation of disciples, a public declaration of this dedication to discipleship, this desire to learn and do all Jesus commanded. In (eis, into) the name means into the possession, protection, and worship of, and implies the person will be dedicated to and yielded to the control of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to prove the trinity here but rather showing that "in the name" is by the authorty of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Now, I don't mean the argument I've heard a hundred times that a person who thinks their ready to die will confess Jesus as their Savior sort of as an insurance policy type of thing. I'm talking about serious people actually facing death and coming to the conclusion there are sinners in need of salvation.
Plus, you have a Biblical reason why you don't have to be baptized to be saved. Look at Acts 10 starting at vs44, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. Vs45, And the circumcised believers/the Jews who had come with Peter were amazed, (why), because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.
Vs46, For (or because) they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, vs47, Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT just as we did, can he?" Vs48, Then he ordered them to be baptized in the name (or in the authority) of Jesus Christ."
Please notice the order of events in this model. They received the Holy Spirit first, and then they were water baptized. And in regards to Matthew 28:19 look at what vs18 says, "And Jesus came up and spoke to them/the disciples saying, "ALL AUTHORITY has been give to Me in heaven and on earth. Vs19, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing (who, disciples are already followers of Jesus Christ) baptizing them in the name (not names) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Baptism is the initiation of disciples, a public declaration of this dedication to discipleship, this desire to learn and do all Jesus commanded. In (eis, into) the name means into the possession, protection, and worship of, and implies the person will be dedicated to and yielded to the control of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to prove the trinity here but rather showing that "in the name" is by the authorty of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Why would you get banned for responding to the fallacy of an argument from silence? Btw, I see you said the following: "And another question: Do you believe water baptism is necessary to be saved?" My answer to that question is "No." There are literally thousands of reasons why some people are unable to be water baptized for salvation. One common one is a death bed confession of Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Now, I don't mean the argument I've heard a hundred times that a person who thinks their ready to die will confess Jesus as their Savior sort of as an insurance policy type of thing. I'm talking about serious people actually facing death and coming to the conclusion there are sinners in need of salvation.
Plus, you have a Biblical reason why you don't have to be baptized to be saved. Look at Acts 10 starting at vs44, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. Vs45, And the circumcised believers/the Jews who had come with Peter were amazed, (why), because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.
Vs46, For (or because) they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, vs47, Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT just as we did, can he?" Vs48, Then he ordered them to be baptized in the name (or in the authority) of Jesus Christ."
Please notice the order of events in this model. They received the Holy Spirit first, and then they were water baptized. And in regards to Matthew 28:19 look at what vs18 says, "And Jesus came up and spoke to them/the disciples saying, "ALL AUTHORITY has been give to Me in heaven and on earth. Vs19, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing (who, disciples are already followers of Jesus Christ) baptizing them in the name (not names) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Baptism is the initiation of disciples, a public declaration of this dedication to discipleship, this desire to learn and do all Jesus commanded. In (eis, into) the name means into the possession, protection, and worship of, and implies the person will be dedicated to and yielded to the control of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to prove the trinity here but rather showing that "in the name" is by the authorty of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Now, I don't mean the argument I've heard a hundred times that a person who thinks their ready to die will confess Jesus as their Savior sort of as an insurance policy type of thing. I'm talking about serious people actually facing death and coming to the conclusion there are sinners in need of salvation.
Plus, you have a Biblical reason why you don't have to be baptized to be saved. Look at Acts 10 starting at vs44, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. Vs45, And the circumcised believers/the Jews who had come with Peter were amazed, (why), because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.
Vs46, For (or because) they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, vs47, Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT just as we did, can he?" Vs48, Then he ordered them to be baptized in the name (or in the authority) of Jesus Christ."
Please notice the order of events in this model. They received the Holy Spirit first, and then they were water baptized. And in regards to Matthew 28:19 look at what vs18 says, "And Jesus came up and spoke to them/the disciples saying, "ALL AUTHORITY has been give to Me in heaven and on earth. Vs19, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing (who, disciples are already followers of Jesus Christ) baptizing them in the name (not names) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Baptism is the initiation of disciples, a public declaration of this dedication to discipleship, this desire to learn and do all Jesus commanded. In (eis, into) the name means into the possession, protection, and worship of, and implies the person will be dedicated to and yielded to the control of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to prove the trinity here but rather showing that "in the name" is by the authorty of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Just so you know, I do not believe water baptism is necessary for salvation. The one baptism (Eph 4:5) that saves us is baptism in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).
I agree regarding water baptism is not necessary for salvation. And these are open forums so anyone can answer if they want to. What's ironic is I started this thread about the trinity and Jesus Christ being God but here we are discussing water baptism which obviously is not the topic. Btw, what is your view of my opening thread/post?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Really? While you have read that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God yet did you not hear in Genesis 1:3-4, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light,..." Then if you don't hear the word of God in Genesis 1:4 then with all due respect, then are you sure that you hear the word of God in John 1:1-3 The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
And he also said, What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matt 10:27
Have you ever gone to 2 Cor 5:7
And he also said, What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matt 10:27
Have you ever gone to 2 Cor 5:7
J
What your doing shrume is what's called in "logic" making an argument from silence. I'll give you a good example of what I mean. Show me in the book of Acts where anyone came out and said that Jesus Christ is God? Since you cannot show it does that mean that Jesus Christ is not God? I mean he is identified in the gospel of John as God at John 20:28.
In other words, no one can prove a negative. Only things that "HAPPEN" can even possibly leave evidence of themselves. Or to put it another way, your conclusion (that there is no record in the book of Acts of people carrying out Matthew 28:19) does not mean it did not happen. What did the Apostle John say at John 20:30, "many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK;"
Since you were not there when Jesus did these other signs does that mean what John said is not true? The same thing can be said about the book of Acts which btw is a narrative of events and not a "didactic." Check out the following site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
In other words, no one can prove a negative. Only things that "HAPPEN" can even possibly leave evidence of themselves. Or to put it another way, your conclusion (that there is no record in the book of Acts of people carrying out Matthew 28:19) does not mean it did not happen. What did the Apostle John say at John 20:30, "many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK;"
Since you were not there when Jesus did these other signs does that mean what John said is not true? The same thing can be said about the book of Acts which btw is a narrative of events and not a "didactic."
Check out the following site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silenceIN GOD THE SON,
bluto
what Shrume has is an argument with substance. there are facts to back it up. the first one, and its a big one, the Apostles didnt baptize this way. sorry but this is a big deal to me, Jesus said do it this way, the 12 did it different . something does not add up.
you also have the fact that early church fathers quote the passage without the formula. why would they do that? short answer, they wouldnt.