Don't get BURNED in the Morning: Come Praise God!

Sarge
Sarge

April 27th, 2016, 5:40 am #1

(This original post submitted on April 24 2016, 6:40 AM)


The name Jesus used was "the Holy Spirit". Your argument is with Jesus.


Matthew 28:16-20 (NIV)
The Great Commission

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 27th, 2016, 6:51 am #2

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]What was/is the name of "the Holy Spirit"?

Shouldn't we take into consideration Matt. 28:19 in its original text? For example, Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) wrote about Christ saying to his disciples: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

What Christ said to his disciples who were with him at the time (according to the writings of Eusebius) matches perfectly the same name by which those outside of Christ are to be baptized. Here are a few passages that deal with baptism IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST:

Acts.2[38] ... Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ...

Acts.8[16] ... only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts.10[48] ... he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts.19[5] ... they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

April 27th, 2016, 3:01 pm #3

ANTICHRIST is denying the ONE GOD the Father the SINGULAR Deity and ONE LORD Jesus who was filled with that DIVINE NATURE. God does not have three HEADS nor three bodies. That is well explained in many instances. For instance but they INSIST that Jesus did not have the ABILITY to say that He had been given authority REPRESENTING the two other "god" persons. Then, they insist that Peter was deaf and dumb for THINKING that HE HEARD Jesus say "baptize in the NAME (singular) of Jesus whom God MADE TO BE both Lord and Christ. In fact, Donnie notes just a few of the 100% Bible and church history understanding before the Pagan-Catholic "trinity." Even then, it was-is perfectly clear that if you baptize in the NAMES of father, son and spirit YOU must baptize or splash water THREE TIMES.

Eph. 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God [Theos] and the Father
.....in the name of our Lord [Kurios] Jesus Christ;

Col. 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed,
.....do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
.....giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Doesn't that include baptism? It may not matter if you refute baptism which means to be "Washed with water INTO the Word or INTO the School of Christ."

2Th. 1:12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified IN you, and ye in him,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
according to the grace of our God
.....AND the Lord Jesus Christ.


Why do they claim that Paul was ignorant for putting the AND between God and His Christ? The HIRE Paul spoke about was "a living" which meant FOOD or what you EAT. The Jacob-cursed and God-abandoned Levites served by COURSES: when on duty they got a daily ration of food. They returned home the rest of the year.

Even THIS was authorized when they KEPT THE TRADITIONS or the WORDS of Christ, the LOGOS or regulative principle; opposite to rhetoric, singing or playing instruments.

Those who heap coals of fire on your head with a 20/20 vision aimed at 24/7 BURDEN LADING, cannot have missed this CENI which they claim DOES NOT EXIST. Paul is speaking for ALL civilized religious workers.

2Th. 3:6 Now we command you, brethren,
..... in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
.....that ye WITHDRAW yourselves from every brother
that walketh [while teaching, arguing, living] DISORDERLY,
.....and NOT after the TRADITION which he received of us.

dē-nuntĭo (-cĭo ), DENOUNCE

2Th. 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us:
.....For we behaved not ourselves DISORDERLY among you;
2Th. 3:8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought;
.....but WROUGHT with LABOR and travail night and day,
.....that we might not be CHARGEABLE to any of you:
2Th. 3:9 Not because we have not power,
.....but to make ourselves an ENSAMPLE unto you to follow us.
2Th. 3:10 For even when we were with you,
.....this we COMMANDED you, that if any would not work,
.....neither should he eat. <b>
2Th. 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly,
.....working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th. 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ,
.....that with quietness they <b>WORK, and eat their OWN bread.
</b></b>


2Tim. 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal,
.....The Lord knoweth them that are his.
.....And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

James 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets,
.....who have spoken in the name of the Lord,
.....for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.

There is only ONE OFFICE: Elders to teach that which HAD been taught. Evangelist to teach what Jesus commanded. Peter defines that holy scripture as the PROPHETS by the Spirit OF Christ and made certain or CERTIFIED by Jesus christ and left for our memory by eye-- and ear-- witnesses. There are NOT 2,000 year old prophets or apostles AS THEY CLAIM.</font>
Quote
Like
Share

Curly
Curly

April 27th, 2016, 3:33 pm #4

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]What was/is the name of "the Holy Spirit"?

Shouldn't we take into consideration Matt. 28:19 in its original text? For example, Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) wrote about Christ saying to his disciples: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

What Christ said to his disciples who were with him at the time (according to the writings of Eusebius) matches perfectly the same name by which those outside of Christ are to be baptized. Here are a few passages that deal with baptism IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST:

Acts.2[38] ... Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ...

Acts.8[16] ... only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts.10[48] ... he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts.19[5] ... they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[/color]
Donnie, just out on a whim?
Quote
Share

Bill
Bill

April 27th, 2016, 7:35 pm #5

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]What was/is the name of "the Holy Spirit"?

Shouldn't we take into consideration Matt. 28:19 in its original text? For example, Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) wrote about Christ saying to his disciples: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

What Christ said to his disciples who were with him at the time (according to the writings of Eusebius) matches perfectly the same name by which those outside of Christ are to be baptized. Here are a few passages that deal with baptism IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST:

Acts.2[38] ... Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ...

Acts.8[16] ... only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts.10[48] ... he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts.19[5] ... they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[/color]
I've not heard of anyone who objected to being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, unless perhaps they thought that by doing so, they would be embracing the Trinity. Of course, Jesus did tell us to be baptized in those three "names."

Since the Holy Spirit has no "name" as such but is instead a designation, we must interpret "in the name of" to mean the same as "by the authority of," just as the expression "Stop in the name of the law" means the same as "Stop by the authority of the law." Since the "law" has no name as such, it stands to reason that the expression means "Stop by the authority of the law."

So when we're baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we're baptized by the authority given through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What about those verses in Acts that only mention being baptized in the name of Jesus? Given what Jesus said about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matt. 28:19, those "Jesus-only" verses are examples of synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part represents the whole; there, Jesus represents the "whole" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Quote
Share

Sarge
Sarge

April 27th, 2016, 10:50 pm #6



Baptism in the Name of Jesus Only

Before concluding, we need to address the Oneness Pentecostal idea that only certain words may be spoken during a baptismal ceremony (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”). Oneness clergymen contend that should the statement be made, “I baptize you into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” it would be a violation of Scripture, and thus negate the validity of the immersion. This exhibits a lack of biblical information on this theme.

First, let us note the illogical consequences of such a doctrine. If a specific set of words is to be pronounced at the time of a baptism, exactly what are those words? A brief look at the New Testament will reveal that a variety of expressions are employed when the terms “baptize” and “name” are connected. Observe the following:

“... baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
“... be baptized ... in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).
“... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).
“... baptized in (en) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48).
“... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

These passages contain five variant phraseologies. Which one is to be pronounced at the time of the baptism, to the exclusion of the others? The truth of the matter is none of them has reference to any set of words to be pronounced at the time of baptism.

Second, the language is designed to express certain truths, not prescribe a ritualistic set of words. If the phrase “in the name of Christ” implies the saying of those words in connection with the act to which they are enjoined, what would Colossians 3:17 require?—“And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Accordingly, one would have to preface every word and act with the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Such highlights the absurdity of the Oneness position.

Wayne Jackson
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

April 28th, 2016, 12:21 am #7

Before concluding, we need to address the Oneness Pentecostal idea that only certain words may be spoken during a baptismal ceremony (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”). Oneness clergymen contend that should the statement be made, “I baptize you into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” it would be a violation of Scripture, and thus negate the validity of the immersion. This exhibits a lack of biblical information on this theme.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are NOT names of people. If you insist then tell us the NAME of the Breath of God.

What would make one so terminally arrogant that a preacher must lay one hand on the candidate and point one into heaven and PRONOUNCE some magical formula.<font>

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


The enuch made the ONLY confession. Many (mega) are called or invited but few (mikros) are chosen.

THE COMMAND EASILY UNDERSTOOD FROM SIMPLE GRAMMAR.

“... baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).


The singular MAN Jesus of Nazareth was God's visual aid antithetical to the always pagan trinity. ALL authority was vested in Jesus of Nazareth. NAME is singular and not nameS

NOT A COMMAND BUT THE EXAMPLE of Peter explaining the COMMAND.

“... be baptized ... in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).


The "Demonstrations" OF Aphrahat.

Matthew 28:19. Now thus is faith; when a man believes in God the Lord of all, Who made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is in them; and He made Adam in His image; and He gave the Law to Moses; He sent of His Spirit upon the prophets;

He sent moreover His Christ into the world. Furthermore that a man should believe in the resurrection of the dead; and should furthermore also believe in the sacrament of baptism. This is the faith of the Church of God. And (it is necessary) that a man should separate himself from the observance of hours and Sabbaths and moons and seasons, and divinations and sorceries and Chaldaean arts and magic, from fornication and from festive music, from vain doctrines, which are instruments of the Evil One, from the blandishment of honeyed words, from blasphemy and from adultery. And that a man should not bear false witness, and that a man should not speak with double tongue. These then are the works of the faith which is based on the true Stone which is Christ, on Whom the whole building is reared up.





</font>
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on April 28th, 2016, 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

April 28th, 2016, 12:42 am #8

(This original post submitted on April 24 2016, 6:40 AM)


The name Jesus used was "the Holy Spirit". Your argument is with Jesus.


Matthew 28:16-20 (NIV)
The Great Commission

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Theophilus to Autolycus who first used the word "trias"

http://www.piney.com/HsTheopTrinity.html

Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

April 28th, 2016, 3:49 am #9


Baptism in the Name of Jesus Only

Before concluding, we need to address the Oneness Pentecostal idea that only certain words may be spoken during a baptismal ceremony (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”). Oneness clergymen contend that should the statement be made, “I baptize you into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” it would be a violation of Scripture, and thus negate the validity of the immersion. This exhibits a lack of biblical information on this theme.

First, let us note the illogical consequences of such a doctrine. If a specific set of words is to be pronounced at the time of a baptism, exactly what are those words? A brief look at the New Testament will reveal that a variety of expressions are employed when the terms “baptize” and “name” are connected. Observe the following:

“... baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
“... be baptized ... in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).
“... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).
“... baptized in (en) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48).
“... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

These passages contain five variant phraseologies. Which one is to be pronounced at the time of the baptism, to the exclusion of the others? The truth of the matter is none of them has reference to any set of words to be pronounced at the time of baptism.

Second, the language is designed to express certain truths, not prescribe a ritualistic set of words. If the phrase “in the name of Christ” implies the saying of those words in connection with the act to which they are enjoined, what would Colossians 3:17 require?—“And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Accordingly, one would have to preface every word and act with the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Such highlights the absurdity of the Oneness position.

Wayne Jackson
That's why it's best to put any hang-ups about the Trinity aside, do as Jesus said, and be baptized in the name of (meaning by the authority of) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 28th, 2016, 4:54 am #10

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Better yet: leave the "Trinity" concept out of this. That passage does not prove the validity of the Trinity dogma -- the man-invented God-in-Three-Persons dogma. A mere mention of three entities, with one entity which is not a "person," does not validate TrinitarianISM.

Besides, the passage speaks of a singular name, not a multiplicity of names. "IN THE NAME OF" (singular) is a key factor in understanding the passage. I agree: it is by "the authority of." However, it is clearly stated in the preceding verse when Jesus said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." That power was given to Jesus by God the Father.

So, there's no argument against those passages in Acts that clearly state "in the name of Jesus Christ." Remember the authority bestowed upon Jesus the Son by Whom? Of course, by the only true God the Father!!![/color]
Quote
Like
Share