Question...

[Quantrill]

Hmmm, and the Didache also promotes that the brothers of Christ (James, Jude, and other family members) never accepted the divinity of Jesus. So, I highly doubt I would call that reference legible, just saying. And besides, it is not the actual Bible. I mean there is concrete evidence how Paul baptizes and clearly Peter taught on it. So that means all of the Disciples and James (leader and brother of Jesus plus Jude) probably baptized as we see Paul baptizing (name of Jesus).

But one would think with many I this world being baptized Father-Son-Holy Ghost, there would be an actual example in the Bible of it. But there is not

We don't need an example. We have the Words of Jesus Christ.

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

You did notice that Jesus Christ said that we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in (Matt. 28:19)? So, is that not good enough for you? Do you disbelieve this Scripture?

Concerning Paul, when he was baptized we are not even told the language used. We are just told that he was baptized. (Acts 9:18)

Paul never presented himself as 'worthy enough' to be anything associated with God. Strange question.

Quantrill

I took the liberties to look up some of the posts from RLM68 and found they were authentic. So, it does appear that Jesus (did not) instruct to baptize in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost.

Besides, if He had, I am sure there would be one example in the Bible of His followers doing it.

And your thoughts on Paul seem odd when we know churches today preach his Grace message. How can Paul be adequate to accept his Grace message, but not how he baptized? If I had to question Paul concerning anything, I would not accept anything else he promoted. And here we have people not accepting how he baptize, but accept his Grace message to believe in the Once Saved Always Saved foundation. Seems rather hypocritical!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Here is a thought. I don't need a Scripture showing people being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I have the words of Jesus Christ in (Matt. 28:19) that we are to baptize in the name of the Father, Son. and Holy Ghost.

Concerning (Acts 19:1-7) , the contrast is between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. These are two different baptism's. (Matt. 3:11). "...he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." These men in (Acts 19) had not been baptized with the baptism of Jesus. They had only been baptized with the baptism of John. They needed to believe on Jesus and be baptized with his baptism. (Acts 19:4) "...that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

So, here is a thought. When you come across someone who is baptized only unto John's baptism and not Christ's, feel free to re-baptize them in the name of Jesus Christ. But to all others, follow what Jesus Christ said in (Matt. 28:19).

Quantrill

After researching, I do not believe that is what Jesus told them to do. If He had, Peter and Paul would have done it. I believe they only did what Jesus taught. And that was to baptize in His name like they did, and we have example in the Bible of them doing.

 

[Quantrill]

I took the liberties to look up some of the posts from RLM68 and found they were authentic. So, it does appear that Jesus (did not) instruct to baptize in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost.

Besides, if He had, I am sure there would be one example in the Bible of His followers doing it.

And your thoughts on Paul seem odd when we know churches today preach his Grace message. How can Paul be adequate to accept his Grace message, but not how he baptized? If I had to question Paul concerning anything, I would not accept anything else he promoted. And here we have people not accepting how he baptize, but accept his Grace message to believe in the Once Saved Always Saved foundation. Seems rather hypocritical!

Authentic? Who cares? Everyone's posts are 'authentic'. Doesn't mean they are true. Therein lies your problem.

See again (Matt. 28:19). Jesus clearly says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I already told you about Paul. Why repeat your same question?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

After researching, I do not believe that is what Jesus told them to do. If He had, Peter and Paul would have done it. I believe they only did what Jesus taught. And that was to baptize in His name like they did, and we have example in the Bible of them doing.

Your 'researching' has led you to believe contrary to what the Bible says. Guess which one I will believe. Hint...It ain't you.

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

According to my research, from the moment Jesus ascended to the destruction in 70 A.D., we have literally 2 examples of baptism. Both were in the name of Jesus, not the Father-Son-Holy Ghost. So outside of John in Patmos writing Revelation, we have a solid 35 year original church history of the Disciples, James and Jude, and Paul. And it appears they baptized in the name of Jesus, because nowhere did anyone condemn Paul (not the Disciples or the leaders [James]) for baptizing that way. So, it must have been what Jesus taught. Because that is the Disciples, the Counsel, and Paul accepting that baptism.

And literally nowhere is there one example of being baptized Father-Son-Holy Ghost, nowhere!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Don't you believe if Jesus commanded that way of baptism we would have at least one example of it in scripture?

I do, the Bible is my guide.

 

[Quantrill]

According to my research, from the moment Jesus ascended to the destruction in 70 A.D., we have literally 2 examples of baptism. Both were in the name of Jesus, not the Father-Son-Holy Ghost. So outside of John in Patmos writing Revelation, we have a solid 35 year original church history of the Disciples, James and Jude, and Paul. And it appears they baptized in the name of Jesus, because nowhere did anyone condemn Paul (not the Disciples or the leaders [James]) for baptizing that way. So, it must have been what Jesus taught. Because that is the Disciples, the Counsel, and Paul accepting that baptism.

And literally nowhere is there one example of being baptized Father-Son-Holy Ghost, nowhere!

Your research has led you to disbelieve the Bible. Again, guess which one I believe. Hint...it aint you.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Don't you believe if Jesus commanded that way of baptism we would have at least one example of it in scripture?

I do, the Bible is my guide.

There is no requirement for an example needed. The words of Jesus Christ are enough.

That is a lie. If the Bible were your guide you would beleive Jesus Christ.

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

There is no requirement for an example needed. The words of Jesus Christ are enough.

That is a lie. If the Bible were your guide you would beleive Jesus Christ.

Quantrill

Really?

Because everything Jesus said we can see others do in the rest of the New Testament. So, if He actually said baptize in Father-Son-Holy Ghost, there would be an example of it.

That is the truth of it, period!

 

[Quantrill]

Really?

Because everything Jesus said we can see others do in the rest of the New Testament. So, if He actually said baptize in Father-Son-Holy Ghost, there would be an example of it.

That is the truth of it, period!

Yes, really. An example is not required. Jesus Christ gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son. and Holy Spirit. The only reason you don't want to, is because you don't believe He gave that command. This places you on really shaky ground.

Yes, really.

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Yes, really. An example is not required. Jesus Christ gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son. and Holy Spirit. The only reason you don't want to, is because you don't believe He gave that command. This places you on really shaky ground.

Yes, really.

Quantrill

No it does not, if there are examples of everything Jesus taught being played out in the rest of the New testament, then that baptismal formula would also be played out. Are you going to discredit Peter (the Rock - name given to Peter by Jesus) for his Acts 2:38 to repent and then be baptized in name of Jesus?

I mean, we have 2 solid examples from concrete people our walk in God surrounds, and you are discrediting them? I believe they were following what Jesus taught. I believe Matthew 28:19 was actually changed. Which means, humans changed the words of God

 

[Quantrill]

No it does not, if there are examples of everything Jesus taught being played out in the rest of the New testament, then that baptismal formula would also be played out. Are you going to discredit Peter (the Rock - name given to Peter by Jesus) for his Acts 2:38 to repent and then be baptized in name of Jesus?

I mean, we have 2 solid examples from concrete people our walk in God surrounds, and you are discrediting them? I believe they were following what Jesus taught. I believe Matthew 28:19 was actually changed. Which means, humans changed the words of God

I don't remember any example of (Matt. 5:29-30) in Scripture. Do you?

The examples you give are contrast between the baptism of John and of Christ. (Acts 2:38) is the same thing. The Christ they rejected, they must be baptized into.

You believe (Matt. 28:19) was changed. Of course you do. And that is your problem, not mine. (Matt. 28:19) are the words of Jesus Christ. Which means you change the words of God.

Save your little cartoons for another.

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I don't remember any example of (Matt. 5:29-30) in Scripture. Do you?

The examples you give are contrast between the baptism of John and of Christ. (Acts 2:38) is the same thing. The Christ they rejected, they must be baptized into.

You believe (Matt. 28:19) was changed. Of course you do. And that is your problem, not mine. (Matt. 28:19) are the words of Jesus Christ. Which means you change the words of God.

Save your little cartoons for another.

Quantrill

For one, that was not meant as something to do literally since Jesus was here to save us. No need to remove parts of us when God is here to bring us salvation and forgiveness. That is a common sense understanding.

But the baptismal is something that you are encouraged and must do to show you fully accept God. Yes, the thief on the cross did not get baptized and sometimes death bed confessions do not get baptized. But we who are able should be baptized. And I follow the example of God's inspired WORD. And within His inspired WORD, we see Peter and Paul baptizing in name of Jesus. No Way would Peter disobey Jesus about this baptismal formula, no way. And since we see how they actually did baptize, it is rather obvious that Matthew 28:19 was changed!

 

[Quantrill]

For one, that was not meant as something to do literally since Jesus was here to save us. No need to remove parts of us when God is here to bring us salvation and forgiveness. That is a common sense understanding.

But the baptismal is something that you are encouraged and must do to show you fully accept God. Yes, the thief on the cross did not get baptized and sometimes death bed confessions do not get baptized. But we who are able should be baptized. And I follow the example of God's inspired WORD. And within His inspired WORD, we see Peter and Paul baptizing in name of Jesus. No Way would Peter disobey Jesus about this baptismal formula, no way. And since we see how they actually did baptize, it is rather obvious that Matthew 28:19 was changed!

Oh, ok. Jesus was here to save us so what He said in (Matt. 5:29-30) doesn't need an 'example' to prove. Gotcha pardner.

Oh, baptism is different. Ok.

Oh, the thief on the cross is different also. I see.

I see, you don't follow the Word of God. You follow the example of the Word of God. Which leads you to reject (Matt. 28:19).

Which leads me to reject your opinions concerning the Word of God.

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Oh, ok. Jesus was here to save us so what He said in (Matt. 5:29-30) doesn't need an 'example' to prove. Gotcha pardner.

Oh, baptism is different. Ok.

Oh, the thief on the cross is different also. I see.

I see, you don't follow the Word of God. You follow the example of the Word of God. Which leads you to reject (Matt. 28:19).

Which leads me to reject your opinions concerning the Word of God.

Quantrill

hahaha twist it like you need to...

But, you are claiming that both Peter and Paul, along with the council led by Jesus' brother (James the Just) DISOBEYED Jesus by how we see the original church baptize. I think you are blind. If you think they disobeyed Jesus, then you better toss out Grace and everything else we accept from Peter and Paul. Because I believe how we see Peter and Paul baptizing is how Jesus instructed them to baptize. After Peter denied Jesus and he wept bitterly (repented), no way would he ever disobey Jesus ever again. And if he baptized in name of Jesus, it was because that is what Jesus taught. Therefore, just like the Catholics admit in their Encyclopedia, they did change the original Matthew 28:19.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

This also means, if you believe Peter disobeyed Jesus, then why would you believe Peter and his dream allowing us GENTILES to become members of God's Holy family?

There are so many things we will have to toss out by believing Peter and Paul disobeyed Jesus (God in the flesh). Even our salvation and hope in God has to be tossed out if we believe they disobeyed Jesus!

 

[preacher4truth]

I mean how in the world can someone have given a useful or like to rlm68's clear denial of the Triune God in his post above (post 71)????

He just denied the distinction of 2 persons of the Godhead, Christ and the Father!

 

[Locutus]

Hmmm, and the Didache also promotes that the brothers of Christ (James, Jude, and other family members) never accepted the divinity of Jesus.

Where does it do that?

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Where does it do that?

Williams states that,

Reading the Didache one gets the clear impression of a very early Judaeo-Christian church, refreshingly free from the influence of the exalted Christologies of Paul and John. The word ‘God‘ appears 10 times in the work but it never refers to Jesus directly or indirectly.





According to James Tabor, a professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina (USA)

One of the earliest Christian books ever written –the Didache or the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles— believed to have been composed when Christ’s surviving family was alive during the first century AD, also portrays Jesus Christ as a human and recommends people to follow not Christ, but his teachings instead.

Interestingly, the Didache does not make reference to the Virgin giving Birth, the resurrection, and most significantly perhaps, Jesus as God, rather as his servant.

“Doesn’t mention the cross of Christ, doesn’t mention the blood of Jesus, and doesn’t mention forgiving sins through believing in the Lord – nothing like that.”

In addition, the ancient text also details early Communion where there is NOT detail whatsoever of bread and wine being the blood and body of Christ.