What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?

[Marymog]

The name of the son is Acts 2:38?

Does saying the name of Jesus at baptisms make the Catholic tremble?

I am starting to think so these days.

Acts 2:38

 

[user]

Thanks user.

Neither of those passages say they was immersed. We can presume or assume they were but the wording of the passage does NOT say they were immersed. It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan”. But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” According to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion. A historical Christian document called The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. It said that pouring water three times upon the head was acceptable for baptism. Ancient Christian mosaics also show pouring for baptism. So, in review, neither Scripture nor the historical written practice of NT Christians nor the art work of the early Christianity support the immersion ONLY practice that your men have taught you, however immersion is preferable.

Look at those passages again and ask yourself: Can a person go "into" water and "come up out of the water" without being fully immersed by the water? (the answer is yes)

Mary

Lets take a look as the scene unfolds...

Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
[27] And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Lets pause for a sec.
No doubt this man has enough water for himself and camels for the return trip (and could have used that for "sprinkling") But waited till they came across water... why?

Lets continue...

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?
[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.
[39] And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

[Taken]

His name is Jesus of course.

More important, what is the name of the holy spirit?

Christ, meaning the Anointed One.
Christ, the Promised (Messiah) Deliverer of God.
Christ, the Power of God.
Christ, the Wisdom of God.
Christ, the Seed of God.
Christ, the Quickening Spirit of God.

 

[Marymog]

Lets take a look as the scene unfolds...

Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
[27] And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Lets pause for a sec.
No doubt this man has enough water for himself and camels for the return trip.
But waited till they came across water... why?

Lets continue...

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?
[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.
[39] And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Thanks user. That was well thought out and well presented. Your articulate scenario does not change what Scripture does NOT say about baptism. Nowhere, in ANY passage, can it be found in Scripture where it says that a person MUST be immersed to be properly baptized. It is simply not in Scripture.

Your scenario does not answer my very simple question to you of which you did not answer: Can a person go "into" water and "come up out of the water" without being fully immersed by the water? Notice how I quoted from Scripture excatly what Scripture says. I am not interjecting my assumption into those passages as you have done....But, I get it. You don't want to answer because you would have to say, Yes, a person can go into water and not be immersed by the water. If you were to give a truthful, honest and sincere answer it would then negate everything you have been taught by your men. That is a difficult pill to swallow!

Your scenario does not negate the other FACTS that I pointed out on how your Christian brothers and sisters in the Apostolic age wrote in a historical document (that some in the early Church considered Scripture) that pouring of water on the head is sufficient for baptism. A historical Christian writing from the time the Apostles were alive affirm this practice.

Now, I have to ask myself...... Should I accept the writings of your men from 500 years ago, who say immersion is the ONLY way a person is properly baptized? Or should I accept the writings of men who lived in the Apostolic age, who were alive when the Apostles walked the earth with THAT writing being considered by some early Christians as Scripture?

The choice is not tough....I accept the teachings of the Apostolic men and I do not accept the teachings of the men of the Reformation....

Respectfully, Mary

 

[PinSeeker]

Thanks user. That was well thought out and well presented. Your articulate scenario does not change what Scripture does NOT say about baptism. Nowhere, in ANY passage, can it be found in Scripture where it says that a person MUST be immersed to be properly baptized. It is simply not in Scripture.

Your scenario does not answer my very simple question to you of which you did not answer: Can a person go "into" water and "come up out of the water" without being fully immersed by the water? Notice how I quoted from Scripture excatly what Scripture says. I am not interjecting my assumption into those passages as you have done....But, I get it. You don't want to answer because you would have to say, Yes, a person can go into water and not be immersed by the water. If you were to give a truthful, honest and sincere answer it would then negate everything you have been taught by your men. That is a difficult pill to swallow!

Your scenario does not negate the other FACTS that I pointed out on how your Christian brothers and sisters in the Apostolic age wrote in a historical document (that some in the early Church considered Scripture) that pouring of water on the head is sufficient for baptism. A historical Christian writing from the time the Apostles were alive affirm this practice.

Now, I have to ask myself...... Should I accept the writings of your men from 500 years ago, who say immersion is the ONLY way a person is properly baptized? Or should I accept the writings of men who lived in the Apostolic age, who were alive when the Apostles walked the earth with THAT writing being considered by some early Christians as Scripture?

The choice is not tough....I accept the teachings of the Apostolic men and I do not accept the teachings of the men of the Reformation....

Respectfully, Mary

Mary, I'm pretty much with ya through most of this, but...

Okay, full disclosure: I follow after Martin Luther and John Calvin and the other Reformers. There are those who say immersion is the only way a person is properly baptized, but that is not what was taught concerning baptism by the Reformers 500 years ago or in that tradition even up to today. The Reformers were agreed that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling were all acceptable modes of baptism. They regarded the mode of baptism as adiaphorous (theologically indifferent). Parts of scripture (some different, some even the same) can be used to support the case for all three modes. Paul seems to endorse full immersion in Romans 6 (verse 4 specifically, although attributing this endorsement to Paul because of this passage seems a stretch), but God Himself says He will sprinkle clean water on Israelites and clean them from all their uncleannesses and idols in Ezekiel 36:25. And to your point, full immersion was not even possible in the area of the Jordan where Jesus Himself was baptized, as the water probably didn't even come up much over His ankles. John the Baptist probably scooped some water in some kind of bowl and poured it over Jesus's head while He stood ~ or possibly knelt ~ in the water.

Other than that, yes, I'm sure you, as a Catholic, are at least largely opposed to the teachings of the Reformers, because their main objective was to reclaim Biblical Christianity from the mis-teachings (and abuses in some cases, as was the case with "indulgences") of the day ~ many of which still survive today (like praying to the dead and elevating Mary to essentially co-Redeemer status with Christ Jesus) ~ by the Catholic Church.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[user]

Thanks user. That was well thought out and well presented. Your articulate scenario does not change what Scripture does NOT say about baptism. Nowhere, in ANY passage, can it be found in Scripture where it says that a person MUST be immersed to be properly baptized. It is simply not in Scripture.

Your scenario does not answer my very simple question to you of which you did not answer: Can a person go "into" water and "come up out of the water" without being fully immersed by the water? Notice how I quoted from Scripture excatly what Scripture says. I am not interjecting my assumption into those passages as you have done....But, I get it. You don't want to answer because you would have to say, Yes, a person can go into water and not be immersed by the water. If you were to give a truthful, honest and sincere answer it would then negate everything you have been taught by your men. That is a difficult pill to swallow!

Your scenario does not negate the other FACTS that I pointed out on how your Christian brothers and sisters in the Apostolic age wrote in a historical document (that some in the early Church considered Scripture) that pouring of water on the head is sufficient for baptism. A historical Christian writing from the time the Apostles were alive affirm this practice.

Now, I have to ask myself...... Should I accept the writings of your men from 500 years ago, who say immersion is the ONLY way a person is properly baptized? Or should I accept the writings of men who lived in the Apostolic age, who were alive when the Apostles walked the earth with THAT writing being considered by some early Christians as Scripture?

The choice is not tough....I accept the teachings of the Apostolic men and I do not accept the teachings of the men of the Reformation....

Respectfully, Mary

You would turn this...

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?

Into this...

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water(Here is my water bottle); what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Sorry but scripture says...

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

 

[Marymog]

You would turn this...

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?

Into this...

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water(Here is my water bottle); what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Sorry but scripture says...

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

You didn't answer my question: Can a person go "into" water and "come up out of the water" without being fully immersed by the water?

 

[Marymog]

Mary, I'm pretty much with ya through most of this, but...

Okay, full disclosure: I follow after Martin Luther and John Calvin and the other Reformers. There are those who say immersion is the only way a person is properly baptized, but that is not what was taught concerning baptism by the Reformers 500 years ago or in that tradition even up to today. The Reformers were agreed that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling were all acceptable modes of baptism. They regarded the mode of baptism as adiaphorous (theologically indifferent). Parts of scripture (some different, some even the same) can be used to support the case for all three modes. Paul seems to endorse full immersion in Romans 6 (verse 4 specifically, although attributing this endorsement to Paul because of this passage seems a stretch), but God Himself says He will sprinkle clean water on Israelites and clean them from all their uncleannesses and idols in Ezekiel 36:25. And to your point, full immersion was not even possible in the area of the Jordan where Jesus Himself was baptized, as the water probably didn't even come up much over His ankles. John the Baptist probably scooped some water in some kind of bowl and poured it over Jesus's head while He stood ~ or possibly knelt ~ in the water.

Other than that, yes, I'm sure you, as a Catholic, are at least largely opposed to the teachings of the Reformers, because their main objective was to reclaim Biblical Christianity from the mis-teachings (and abuses in some cases, as was the case with "indulgences") of the day ~ many of which still survive today (like praying to the dead and elevating Mary to essentially co-Redeemer status with Christ Jesus) ~ by the Catholic Church.

Grace and peace to you.

Thank you PinSeeker. A lot of people don't know that full immersion was not even possible in the area of the Jordan where Jesus was baptized since the water probably didn't even come up much over His ankles. I have never said that to anyone in my debates about immersion only with people like @user . I always suspected that if I did tell them that they would say 'prove it' and I can't prove it. It is just what the 'experts' on the matter believe based on their scientific studies.

God bless....Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

It was an agreement between Father and Abraham. Abraham is the one who should circumcise everyone.

Sooooo, now you're telling GOD He made a misyake?
And you want to be taken seriously?

Abraham is their father after the flesh, so it is fine for them to call Abraham their father. But calling someone father, when he is not your father after the flesh is wrong, because after the Spirit there is only One Father and He is in Heaven.

WRONG.

Paul calles himself a spirituak "FATHER" to the Corinthians:
1 Cor. 4:14–15
For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

Try again . . .

AAs for calling them teachers, Paul is the only one who does this, maybe it's because he wasn't there to listen when the Teacher said:
Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

As, for me I will trust in the Greater Witness here, which is the Witness from Messiah my Teacher.

You really can't be this ignorant. You DON'T know that it is the HOLY SPIRIT who is the Author of Scripture? ALL Scripture is GOD-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).

The HOLY SPIRIT called men "Teachers" through Paul's pen.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sure...
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you .....
Was Peter speaking to adults or infants?
Think hard.

Peter was speaking to thgousands of Jewish pilgrims in Acts 2.
Can you show me where it says they were ALL adukts, Einstein??
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

You always ignorantly STOP at Acts 2:38 - unstead of continuing to the next verse:
Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

STUDY your Bible, Einstein - don't just skim through it like @user and your other ignorant friends . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You want proof it is a Catholic church ... center of the screen is your Mary goddess with her crown. Now go say ten Hail Marys...

Who said she was a "goddess"?
She's the Mother of God - NOT a goddess.

So, instead of vomiting out idiocies - STUDY your Bible, my Scruipturally-bankrupt friend . . .

 

[Truther]

Acts 2:38

Now, baptize candidates in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins for once in your life.

Join the Acts 2:38 church.

 

[Marymog]

Now, baptize candidates in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins for once in your life.

Join the Acts 2:38 church.

I have joined that church. You are welcome to join it also.

 

[Truther]

Peter was speaking to thgousands of Jewish pilgrims in Acts 2.
Can you show me where it says they were ALL adukts, Einstein??
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

You always ignorantly STOP at Acts 2:38 - unstead of continuing to the next verse:
Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

STUDY your Bible, Einstein - don't just skim through it like @user and your other ignorant friends . . .

The command of Peter in verse 38 to repent included infants in verse 39?

Is that what the RCC teaches?

Do you attend these courses without disputing this idea?

"Once a Catholic always a Catholic"?

"I was born a Catholic and I will die a Catholic"?

You need to repent, Catholic.

I don't mean repent to the priest in the black box, but to God.

 

[Truther]

I have joined that church. You are welcome to join it also.

You are not of the 3000 at Pentecost whom obeyed Acts 2:38.

You are of the 1 billion Catholics that disobey Acts 2:38.

You are also of the protestants that disobey Acts 2:38.

You think with those numbers, you guys could overthrow God's kingdom.

Nope.

 

[Truther]

Who said she was a "goddess"?
She's the Mother of God - NOT a goddess.

So, instead of vomiting out idiocies - STUDY your Bible, my Scruipturally-bankrupt friend . . .

God has a Mama?

Would that make 4 persons in the Godhead?

Yikes.

Maybe the Holy Ghost is Mary?

Oh no, I started a new RCC doctrine...

 

[user]

Who said she was a "goddess"?
She's the Mother of God - NOT a goddess.

So, instead of vomiting out idiocies - STUDY your Bible, my Scruipturally-bankrupt friend . . .

Don't forget to say ten Hail Marys.

 

[Episkopos]

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Can anyone tell me what this specific name is?

Thanks.

It's important to realize that this particular verse was changed by the Roman church early in the second century. The original read..."Baptizing them in My name." That is the name of Jesus. We know this verse was altered because of early Christian writers who quoted the verse in its original form. It makes no sense that Jesus would use the wording that we see in Catholic creedal statements. We are told in Acts that there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven with which people can be saved.

The Father is not a name. The Son is not a name. The Spirit is not a name. Jesus, on the other hand...IS a name.

 

[Daniel L.]

Sooooo, now you're telling GOD He made a misyake?

How did I say that? Abraham and God agreed in covenant that Abraham should circumcise all his house.

Paul calles himself a spirituak "FATHER" to the Corinthians:
1 Cor. 4:14–15
For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

I know he did, he is the only one in the Bible ever do this in this manner, making himself father after the Spirit. A single witness is confirmation of nothing, on the other hand, the Witness of the Word is all the confirmation you need:

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The HOLY SPIRIT called men "Teachers" through Paul's pen.

That is simply not possible, you can't have Jesus saying not to call them father, and latter on the opposite. The Spirit can't contradict Himself, so one has to give, as for me, I will trust in the LORD.

Mother of God

God is uncreatted. She is the Mother of the Man Jesus after the flesh, because the soul of Jesus is the uncreated Word.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

[user]

It's important to realize that this particular verse was changed by the Roman church early in the second century. The original read..."Baptizing them in My name." That is the name of Jesus. We know this verse was altered because of early Christian writers who quoted the verse in its original form. It makes no sense that Jesus would use the wording that we see in Catholic creedal statements. We are told in Acts that there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven with which people can be saved.

The Father is not a name. The Son is not a name. The Spirit is not a name. Jesus, on the other hand...IS a name.

Good point. And, Matthew is not the only account of the great commission...

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.