Baptism in Jesus’ Name?

135

Comments

  • dct112685
    dct112685 Posts: 1,114

    @C_M_ said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.

    This is a quote. Philip Schaff (nineteenth-century church historian) calls the saying, “the watchword of Christian peacemakers” (History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, p. 650).

    The quote is often attributed to great theologians such as Augustine, it comes from an otherwise undistinguished German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century, Rupertus Meldenius.

    The phrase occurs in a tract on Christian unity written (circa 1627) during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), a bloody time in European history in which religious tensions played a significant role. The saying has found great favor among subsequent writers such as Richard Baxter, and has since been adopted as a motto by the Moravian Church of North America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

    These words, translated variously as “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,” or, “unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things,” have often been assigned to St. Augustine and used as a sort of get-out-of-debate free card for many theological difficulties.

    However, St. Augustine did not say this.

    For some time, those in the know cited Peter Meiderlin (Rupertus Meldeniu), a German Lutheran theologian who said in 1626: “if we might keep in necessary things Unity, in unnecessary things Freedom, and in both Charity, our affairs would certainly be in the best condition.” Now this is clearly a post-Reformation saying, said by a Protestant. So it is not only not a saying of St. Augustine, it is not a Catholic saying either.

    However, Meiderlin did not say this first.

    In 1999, H. J. M. Nellen found the quote in a 17th Century writing from the Marco Antonio de Dominis(d. 1624). So is it Catholic or Protestant? Both, as it turns out (sort of).

    ...So, “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity” is not of Catholic origin via Augustine, nor is it a Protestant idea originating in Meiderlin. Ins,tead it is a quote from one of the most untrustworthy theologians in Church history: a twice-declared heretic who could not seem to unify with anybody!-- Marco Antonio de Dominis

    Let the Bible speak its truth. In all things, truth can stand close examination. CM

    Stay on topic

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    I suppose then, maybe Peter and the rest either totally missed what Christ had commanded them only a few days before Pentecost ? Or maybe Peter and the rest just thought they knew better than Christ?

    Or is there a problem with how the wording of Mt 28:19 has been changed at some point in time in order to match a particular later introduced doctrine ?

    No, what I am saying the two are the same thing.

    And why would Jesus all of a sudden (so to say, out of the blue) no longer speak about "in my name" but "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" ... when he always before spoke to the apostles about "in my [Jesus] name" ?????

    The wording in Mt 28:19 is very conspicuous and out of harmony with any other passage where Jesus speaks to the apostles about them doing something "in my [Jesus] name"

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • dct112685
    dct112685 Posts: 1,114

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    I suppose then, maybe Peter and the rest either totally missed what Christ had commanded them only a few days before Pentecost ? Or maybe Peter and the rest just thought they knew better than Christ?

    Or is there a problem with how the wording of Mt 28:19 has been changed at some point in time in order to match a particular later introduced doctrine ?

    No, what I am saying the two are the same thing.

    And why would Jesus all of a sudden (so to say, out of the blue) no longer speak about "in my name" but "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" ... when he always before spoke to the apostles about "in my [Jesus] name" ?????

    The wording in Mt 28:19 is very conspicuous and out of harmony with any other passage where Jesus speaks to the apostles about them doing something "in my [Jesus] name"

    I'll ask him when I meet him face to face.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    Thanks, but please understand the Book of Acts is the only divinely inspired commentary, on the NT. Of course it is scripture....

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • dct112685
    dct112685 Posts: 1,114

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    Thanks, but please understand the Book of Acts is the only divinely inspired commentary, on the NT. Of course it is scripture....

    So misguided... It's a historical account and by no means a comprehensive account.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    Thanks, but please understand the Book of Acts is the only divinely inspired commentary, on the NT. Of course it is scripture....

    So misguided... It's a historical account and by no means a comprehensive account.

    It's the only "inspired" commentary we have.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • dct112685
    dct112685 Posts: 1,114

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    Thanks, but please understand the Book of Acts is the only divinely inspired commentary, on the NT. Of course it is scripture....

    So misguided... It's a historical account and by no means a comprehensive account.

    It's the only "inspired" commentary we have.

    But it is not comprehensive. It gives a few brief glimpses into the way things were. You can argue all you want Dave but you just don't know how to properly interpret Scripture. You have shown that time and time again that you do not use sound practices. Worse, you are pharisaical in the sense that you try and force your left-field views on everyone else.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    Thanks, but please understand the Book of Acts is the only divinely inspired commentary, on the NT. Of course it is scripture....

    So misguided... It's a historical account and by no means a comprehensive account.

    It's the only "inspired" commentary we have.

    But it is not comprehensive. It gives a few brief glimpses into the way things were. You can argue all you want Dave but you just don't know how to properly interpret Scripture. You have shown that time and time again that you do not use sound practices. Worse, you are pharisaical in the sense that you try and force your left-field views on everyone else.

    It is enough to prove you and your choice commentaries wrong. And that's good enough for me.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    Stay on topic

    Sorry. I guess you got off the subject when you made the quote; albeit, without the quotation marks. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • dct112685
    dct112685 Posts: 1,114

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    Thanks, but please understand the Book of Acts is the only divinely inspired commentary, on the NT. Of course it is scripture....

    So misguided... It's a historical account and by no means a comprehensive account.

    It's the only "inspired" commentary we have.

    But it is not comprehensive. It gives a few brief glimpses into the way things were. You can argue all you want Dave but you just don't know how to properly interpret Scripture. You have shown that time and time again that you do not use sound practices. Worse, you are pharisaical in the sense that you try and force your left-field views on everyone else.

    It is enough to prove you and your choice commentaries wrong. And that's good enough for me.

    No it actually isn't. You have not proven anything at all.

    @C_M_ said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    Stay on topic

    Sorry. I guess you got off the subject when you made the quote; albeit, without the quotation marks. CM

    No, I was showing Dave there is no need for his projecting of his personal views on others with authority when it is debatable.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM

    This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT.

    You may want to check this going forward. The Book of Acts clearly gives a picture window to the history and practices of the growing early church. This can be a new thread as well. As for now, just a taste:

    1. The book of Acts, “which chronicles the early days of the Church”, describes the church’s mission in the first century.
    2. The book of Acts is full of the successes beginning with the baptism of 3,000 people on the day of the Pentecost.
    3. The book of Acts clearly documents the fact that the early church was organized for mission. It was mission-driven.
    4. The book of Acts reveals the key elements of the church’s mission strategy: earnest prayer, relentless evangelism, aggressive church planting, holistic small groups, and empowering leadership.
    5. The book of Acts reveals that Paul not only preached Christ publicly, he also shared Christ personally with friends.
    6. The book of Acts documents the missionary journeys of Paul and his associates as they traveled from place to place raising up new churches.
    7. One scholar views the Book of Acts in three sections: pre-gentile, transition, and gentile mission. He believes that the Gentile mission actually began only after Jerusalem council. The early church had for a long time serious problems accepting gentiles on the same level as Jewish believers. The reluctance of Peter (Acts 10) and the fierce opposition to the Gentiles that led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) illustrate very clearly that the “movement” was still centripetally oriented.
    8. The Book of Acts more fully reveals the meaning of service as the New Testament church was being established.
    9. The book of Acts recounts the thrilling story of the triumphant advance of the Christian movement in the pagan world of the first century A.D.
    10. The book of Acts records the fact that as soon as Saul, the persecutor, was converted he was baptized (Acts 9:18).

    Let's not forget, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just Acts. Besides, is it history or commentary history? Don't get lost here. The Bible is a human/Divine product.

    And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.

    The pages of history bear witness. CM

    SOURCES:
    -- Schoeman, Roy H. 2003. Salvation Is from the Jews, the Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco: Ignatius Press., pg 55.
    -- Keathley, Naymond H. The Church’ s Mission to the Gentiles. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999], 3-62.

    Thanks, but please understand the Book of Acts is the only divinely inspired commentary, on the NT. Of course it is scripture....

    So misguided... It's a historical account and by no means a comprehensive account.

    It's the only "inspired" commentary we have.

    But it is not comprehensive. It gives a few brief glimpses into the way things were. You can argue all you want Dave but you just don't know how to properly interpret Scripture. You have shown that time and time again that you do not use sound practices. Worse, you are pharisaical in the sense that you try and force your left-field views on everyone else.

    It is enough to prove you and your choice commentaries wrong. And that's good enough for me.

    No it actually isn't. You have not proven anything at all.

    If you contradict Peter, which BTW you do, how does it not prove you are completely wrong on Baptism?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463
    edited April 2018

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    No, I was showing Dave there is no need for his projecting of his personal views on others with authority when it is debatable.

    A little context and background are detrimental to the quote you used to make your point? Have I not a made an accurate and timely contribution?

    Besides, there were two matters pending: The formula of baptism and the biblical "model" of Baptism. Are you, David, saying that the biblical "model" of baptism is debatable? Do tell in this public forum. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

    “Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

    Every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

    How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

    I received baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ as a trinitarian. And I believe this method identifies Jesus as God, as stated in the classic trinitarian model.

    Any thoughts?

    We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @reformed said:

    We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model.

    In your view, what's the difference between a baptism simply occurring, and the baptism reported in Acts 19.1-5? The passage seems like a clear description of the chain of events that led to the event of the baptism of some Ephesian disciples. In that event, clearly they are baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus." It seems to me that had the intention of the passage been simply to report the occurrence of a baptism, Luke would not have had to cite the name in which they were baptized.

    Please say some more about what you mean by a report of a baptism's occurrence.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:

    We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model.

    In your view, what's the difference between a baptism simply occurring, and the baptism reported in Acts 19.1-5? The passage seems like a clear description of the chain of events that led to the event of the baptism of some Ephesian disciples. In that event, clearly they are baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus." It seems to me that had the intention of the passage been simply to report the occurrence of a baptism, Luke would not have had to cite the name in which they were baptized.

    Please say some more about what you mean by a report of a baptism's occurrence.

    Again, this does not record the actual method of the baptism. The name of Jesus is also the name of the Father and Spirit. The only place the method is giving in Scripture is in Matthew 28.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

    “Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

    Every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

    How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

    I received baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ as a trinitarian. And I believe this method identifies Jesus as God, as stated in the classic trinitarian model.

    Any thoughts?

    We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model.

    Thanks for adding to the discussion. All of the detailed instances of Baptism in Acts took place by baptizing in Jesus' name. Not one instance of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it appears Peter interpreted Jesus as meaning to baptize in the personal name of the triune God, and not in the names of the roles performed by each member of the Godhead.

    Plus, if baptism depicts among other things our identity with Jesus' death burial and resurrection, should we not baptize in his name?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362
    edited May 2018

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

    “Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

    Every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

    How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

    I received baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ as a trinitarian. And I believe this method identifies Jesus as God, as stated in the classic trinitarian model.

    Any thoughts?

    We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model.

    Thanks for adding to the discussion. All of the detailed instances of Baptism in Acts took place by baptizing in Jesus' name. Not one instance of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it appears Peter interpreted Jesus as meaning to baptize in the personal name of the triune God, and not in the names of the roles performed by each member of the Godhead.

    Plus, if baptism depicts among other things our identity with Jesus' death burial and resurrection, should we not baptize in his name?

    Also, thank you for stopping by and sharing your blessings. We hope to see more of you. This is one of the best and most fairly moderated Christian forums on the net.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

    “Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

    Every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

    How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

    I received baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ as a trinitarian. And I believe this method identifies Jesus as God, as stated in the classic trinitarian model.

    Any thoughts?

    We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model.

    Thanks for adding to the discussion. All of the detailed instances of Baptism in Acts took place by baptizing in Jesus' name. Not one instance of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it appears Peter interpreted Jesus as meaning to baptize in the personal name of the triune God, and not in the names of the roles performed by each member of the Godhead.

    Plus, if baptism depicts among other things our identity with Jesus' death burial and resurrection, should we not baptize in his name?

    Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost so that is what we should do.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

    “Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

    Every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

    How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

    I received baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ as a trinitarian. And I believe this method identifies Jesus as God, as stated in the classic trinitarian model.

    Any thoughts?

    We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model.

    Thanks for adding to the discussion. All of the detailed instances of Baptism in Acts took place by baptizing in Jesus' name. Not one instance of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it appears Peter interpreted Jesus as meaning to baptize in the personal name of the triune God, and not in the names of the roles performed by each member of the Godhead.

    Plus, if baptism depicts among other things our identity with Jesus' death burial and resurrection, should we not baptize in his name?

    Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost so that is what we should do.

    To say this is to ignore Peter and his authority. Jesus Christ is the triune God's personal name. “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) (ESV)

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @Dave_L said:

    Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost so that is what we should do.

    To say this is to ignore Peter and his authority...

    Peter is not God! When is it that a servant's word is greater than his Master? What is or who is Peter since you are so beholding to him? Peter was one of the disciples; a flawed one at that.

    Let's not forget, the name "Jesus" is a common name (look it up). We are to baptize in "the name" title of the Heavenly One. Each had a role in the creation, redemption, and sustaining of humanity. They're One in nature, power, and redemption. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost so that is what we should do.

    To say this is to ignore Peter and his authority...


    Peter is not God! When is it that a servant's word is greater than his Master? What is or who is Peter since you are so beholding to him? Peter was one of the disciples; a flawed one at that.

    Let's not forget, the name "Jesus" is a common name (look it up). We are to baptize in "the name" title of the Heavenly One. Each had a role in the creation, redemption, and sustaining of humanity. They're One in nature, power, and redemption. CM

    If Peter got it wrong, throw away your bibles folks. You cannot trust one word as being true.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @Dave_L said:
    If Peter got it wrong, throw away your bibles folks. You cannot trust one word as being true.

    The ones who got something wrong seem to me to be those who changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...

    "Jesus Christ" is NOT the name of a triune God; "Christ" is not even a name at all.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    If Peter got it wrong, throw away your bibles folks. You cannot trust one word as being true.

    The ones who got something wrong seem to me to be those who changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...

    "Jesus Christ" is NOT the name of a triune God; "Christ" is not even a name at all.

    In the Greek translation, kyrios was used to render the divine name Yahweh (יהוה, yhwh). Thus it became possible to transfer to Jesus statements that were attributed in the Old Testament to God.

    Ramos, A. (2016). Jesus Christ, Titles of. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

    JESUS CHRIST
    “Jesus Christ” is a composite name made up of the personal name “Jesus” (from Gk Iēsous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yēšû (a)ʿ, a late form of Hebrew yĕhôšûaʿ, the meaning of which is “YHWH is salvation” or “YHWH saves/has saved”) and the title, assimilated in early Christianity to Jesus as a name, “Christ” (from Gk Christos, which translates Heb māšı̂aḥ and Aram mĕšı̂ḥāʾ, signifying “anointed” and referring in the context of eschatological expectation to the royal “son of David”). The name “Jesus Christ” thus binds together the historic figure Jesus with the messianic role and status that early Christian faith attributed to him. In Jesus’ own lifetime, his name, since it was common in Israel, called for a specifier: “Jesus the Galilean” (Matt 26:69; cf.21:11), or, more often, “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarean.”

    Meyer, B. F. (1992). Jesus (Person): Jesus Christ. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, p. 773). New York: Doubleday.

    Dave says; "Therefore, any who profess that YHWH (Jesus) has not came in the flesh is an Anti-Christ; “And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.” 1 John 2:22 (NLT)"

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    If Peter got it wrong, throw away your bibles folks. You cannot trust one word as being true.

    The ones who got something wrong seem to me to be those who changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...

    "Jesus Christ" is NOT the name of a triune God; "Christ" is not even a name at all.

    Who, when and where did this "changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...take place? Please give some references, history, names, etc.

    "The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" were the name the then disciples knew. The writer of the Bible used the language of their past (or upbringing). What's wrong with spelling things out in term people understand at the time in light of writer's audience (Jewish Christian). If your child or children called you "father", "dad", "Papa", or "Wolfgang" they are referring to the one who gave them life, provided and care for them. We are making too much of this. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @C_M_ said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The ones who got something wrong seem to me to be those who changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...
    "Jesus Christ" is NOT the name of a triune God; "Christ" is not even a name at all.

    Who, when and where did this "changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...take place? Please give some references, history, names, etc.

    The currently known manuscripts which contain Mt 28:19 all have the wording with the trinitarian formula, however they all stem from the time after the council of Nicea in 325AD where the Trinity doctrine was formally established and anyone not adhering to it threatened and persecuted.
    However, there are writings from the church historian Eusebius which stem from before that time in which he quotes and makes reference to Mt 28:19 and where he does NOT make mention of the trinitarian wording but rather has the more simple wording I mentioned above. For some other details, you may want to do a Google search, and have a look at several websites where this matter is further detailed, for example:
    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

    "The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" were the name the then disciples knew.

    Sorry, but "Father", "Son", "Holy Ghost" are NOT names at all, nor are they "the name".

    The writer of the Bible used the language of their past (or upbringing). What's wrong with spelling things out in term people understand at the time in light of writer's audience (Jewish Christian).

    Indeed ... but please note, that the apostles (of whom Matthew was one) did not know anything about a Trinity Godhead, nor did Jesus ever use a Trinity expression/formula when he was speaking about God, His Father.

    If your child or children called you "father", "dad", "Papa", or "Wolfgang" they are referring to the one who gave them life, provided and care for them. We are making too much of this. CM

    I think those who turn Jesus into God - respectively a "2nd person of a Godhead" - are the ones who make too much of him, seeing they go beyond what Scripture teaches and claim something about Jesus which Jesus himself NEVER claimed or stated.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Wolfgang said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The ones who got something wrong seem to me to be those who changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...
    "Jesus Christ" is NOT the name of a triune God; "Christ" is not even a name at all.

    Who, when and where did this "changed Jesus' wording in Mt 28:19 from "go and make disciples IN MY NAME" into "make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" ...take place? Please give some references, history, names, etc.

    The currently known manuscripts which contain Mt 28:19 all have the wording with the trinitarian formula, however they all stem from the time after the council of Nicea in 325AD where the Trinity doctrine was formally established and anyone not adhering to it threatened and persecuted.
    However, there are writings from the church historian Eusebius which stem from before that time in which he quotes and makes reference to Mt 28:19 and where he does NOT make mention of the trinitarian wording but rather has the more simple wording I mentioned above. For some other details, you may want to do a Google search, and have a look at several websites where this matter is further detailed, for example:
    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

    "The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" were the name the then disciples knew.

    Sorry, but "Father", "Son", "Holy Ghost" are NOT names at all, nor are they "the name".

    The writer of the Bible used the language of their past (or upbringing). What's wrong with spelling things out in term people understand at the time in light of writer's audience (Jewish Christian).

    Indeed ... but please note, that the apostles (of whom Matthew was one) did not know anything about a Trinity Godhead, nor did Jesus ever use a Trinity expression/formula when he was speaking about God, His Father.

    If your child or children called you "father", "dad", "Papa", or "Wolfgang" they are referring to the one who gave them life, provided and care for them. We are making too much of this. CM

    I think those who turn Jesus into God - respectively a "2nd person of a Godhead" - are the ones who make too much of him, seeing they go beyond what Scripture teaches and claim something about Jesus which Jesus himself NEVER claimed or stated.

    Actually the ECF quoted Matt 28:19 way before Nicea and had the same reading, the Didache also contains the same reading so it is not true what you are trying to put forth.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2018

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The currently known manuscripts which contain Mt 28:19 all have the wording with the trinitarian formula, however they all stem from the time after the council of Nicea in 325AD where the Trinity doctrine was formally established and anyone not adhering to it threatened and persecuted.
    However, there are writings from the church historian Eusebius which stem from before that time in which he quotes and makes reference to Mt 28:19 and where he does NOT make mention of the trinitarian wording but rather has the more simple wording I mentioned above. For some other details, you may want to do a Google search, and have a look at several websites where this matter is further detailed, for example:
    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

    "The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" were the name the then disciples knew.

    Sorry, but "Father", "Son", "Holy Ghost" are NOT names at all, nor are they "the name".

    The writer of the Bible used the language of their past (or upbringing). What's wrong with spelling things out in term people understand at the time in light of writer's audience (Jewish Christian).

    Indeed ... but please note, that the apostles (of whom Matthew was one) did not know anything about a Trinity Godhead, nor did Jesus ever use a Trinity expression/formula when he was speaking about God, His Father.

    If your child or children called you "father", "dad", "Papa", or "Wolfgang" they are referring to the one who gave them life, provided and care for them. We are making too much of this. CM

    I think those who turn Jesus into God - respectively a "2nd person of a Godhead" - are the ones who make too much of him, seeing they go beyond what Scripture teaches and claim something about Jesus which Jesus himself NEVER claimed or stated.

    Actually the ECF quoted Matt 28:19 way before Nicea and had the same reading, the Didache also contains the same reading so it is not true what you are trying to put forth.

    There are no manuscripts of the gospel of Matthew in extent which date from before the time of the council of Nicea in 325AD.
    In writings of Eusebius from before the time of the council of Nicea, he quoted and made reference to Mt 28:19 various times and did NOT mention the Trinitarian formula, most likely because the manuscript of the gospel of Matthew which he had available to him and from which he was quoting did NOT contain that Trinity wording. Rather it agreed with what we can read in all the records in Acts which mention baptism and have the wording which is in agreement also with what Peter taught on the day of Pentecost.

    What I wrote above and have repeated here is certainly true. You, however, mention ECF writings and the Didache from before the council of Nicea ... which I had not even mentioned and to which I was not making reference. Nor did I claim that the Trinitarian formula was not in existence prior to the council of Nicea. Seems like you inferred and assumed a few things that were not even part of what I wrote?

    Yes, from shortly after the death of the apostles, teachings were introduced into the early church by certain Church Fathers in which these tried to make Jesus into God ...most likely influenced from the hearth mythology religion background from which they came before becoming Christians. Over the next two centuries a great controversy arose between them and other sections in the early church who remained true to the original gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles which was in essence: the man Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the Messiah (Christ) whom God had sent. The new doctrine about "Jesus is Deity/God" stood in straight contradiction to the teaching they had received from Jesus and his apostles ... and it was not until the council of Nicea in 325AD that the new doctrine under heavy political pressure and under somewhat manipulated circumstances was established as THE DOGMA of "Christianity" ...

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The currently known manuscripts which contain Mt 28:19 all have the wording with the trinitarian formula, however they all stem from the time after the council of Nicea in 325AD where the Trinity doctrine was formally established and anyone not adhering to it threatened and persecuted.
    However, there are writings from the church historian Eusebius which stem from before that time in which he quotes and makes reference to Mt 28:19 and where he does NOT make mention of the trinitarian wording but rather has the more simple wording I mentioned above. For some other details, you may want to do a Google search, and have a look at several websites where this matter is further detailed, for example:
    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

    "The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" were the name the then disciples knew.

    Sorry, but "Father", "Son", "Holy Ghost" are NOT names at all, nor are they "the name".

    The writer of the Bible used the language of their past (or upbringing). What's wrong with spelling things out in term people understand at the time in light of writer's audience (Jewish Christian).

    Indeed ... but please note, that the apostles (of whom Matthew was one) did not know anything about a Trinity Godhead, nor did Jesus ever use a Trinity expression/formula when he was speaking about God, His Father.

    If your child or children called you "father", "dad", "Papa", or "Wolfgang" they are referring to the one who gave them life, provided and care for them. We are making too much of this. CM

    I think those who turn Jesus into God - respectively a "2nd person of a Godhead" - are the ones who make too much of him, seeing they go beyond what Scripture teaches and claim something about Jesus which Jesus himself NEVER claimed or stated.

    Actually the ECF quoted Matt 28:19 way before Nicea and had the same reading, the Didache also contains the same reading so it is not true what you are trying to put forth.

    There are no manuscripts of the gospel of Matthew in extent which date from before the time of the council of Nicea in 325AD.
    In writings of Eusebius from before the time of the council of Nicea, he quoted and made reference to Mt 28:19 various times and did NOT mention the Trinitarian formula, most likely because the manuscript of the gospel of Matthew which he had available to him and from which he was quoting did NOT contain that Trinity wording. Rather it agreed with what we can read in all the records in Acts which mention baptism and have the wording which is in agreement also with what Peter taught on the day of Pentecost.

    What I wrote above and have repeated here is certainly true. You, however, mention ECF writings and the Didache from before the council of Nicea ... which I had not even mentioned and to which I was not making reference. Nor did I claim that the Trinitarian formula was not in existence prior to the council of Nicea. Seems like you inferred and assumed a few things that were not even part of what I wrote?

    Yes, from shortly after the death of the apostles, teachings were introduced into the early church by certain Church Fathers in which these tried to make Jesus into God ...most likely influenced from the hearth mythology religion background from which they came before becoming Christians. Over the next two centuries a great controversy arose between them and other sections in the early church who remained true to the original gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles which was in essence: the man Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the Messiah (Christ) whom God had sent. The new doctrine about "Jesus is Deity/God" stood in straight contradiction to the teaching they had received from Jesus and his apostles ... and it was not until the council of Nicea in 325AD that the new doctrine under heavy political pressure and under somewhat manipulated circumstances was established as THE DOGMA of "Christianity" ...

    What I am saying is that the ECF and the Didache have DIRECT QUOTES from Matthew 29:19 and they include the same text we have today. It was not added later, it was there from the start.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @reformed said:

    @Bill_Coley said:
    In your view, what's the difference between a baptism simply occurring, and the baptism reported in Acts 19.1-5? The passage seems like a clear description of the chain of events that led to the event of the baptism of some Ephesian disciples.
    Please say some more about what you mean by a report of a baptism's occurrence.

    Again, this does not record the actual method of the baptism. The name of Jesus is also the name of the Father and Spirit. The only place the method is giving in Scripture is in Matthew 28.

    What "actual method" description of a baptism is present in Matthew 28.19, but missing in Acts 19.15? The only "method" I see in Matthew 28.19 is that the baptism is to be done "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." How is that "method" of baptism structurally different from the "method" of baptism in Acts 19.5 - namely, "in the name of the Lord Jesus"? It seems to me that both verses report only the name in which baptism is to be done, which makes them structurally comparable.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0