WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?
- Thread starter marksman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Philip James
Well-Known Member
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,942
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,942
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Uh-huh.
ALL of these verse show that "in the name of Jesus Christ" means "by His AUTHORITY".
Oh, and by the way - NONE of these verses are about BAPTISM. Jesus said to Baptize in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT.
This is the Authority of God.
And I suggest that you go to something where we don't have to spend all our time listening to your drivel. No one agrees with you except marymog so you must be brain dead if you can't see the obvious.
Heigh-ho, heigh-ho
Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, heigh-ho
Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it's home from work we go
Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, heigh-ho
Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it's home from work we go
I am probably going off at a tangent here but I feel it has something valid to teach us. In the last few days, I have been watching the first 12 episodes of A.D. Kingdom and Empire. It is a series that has sought to depict the crucifixion of Jesus and the birth of the New Testament Church (NTC). I realise that it is a Netflix serial and the most important thing is that it makes money for them, but having said that so far the details have been reasonably accurate and the characters true to scripture.
The one thing that is a stand out for me is the amount of suffering that new believers went through to remain loyal to their faith. Several of the characters were killed because they refused to renounce Jesus as the Messiah and others were regularly beaten. They had to hide and run all the time because there was a price on their heads both by the High Priest and Roman Governor. Pontius Pilate said that Jesus was a threat to the status quo.
I say has anything changed? The status quo in the church is not too fond of Jesus.
I could not imagine many believers today being willing to face what they faced and suffered what they suffered. But the fact is that the two were part and parcel of each other. Know Christ, know suffering and maybe death. Despite that they were consumed with spreading the good news of Jesus and if that meant death, so be it.
It showed the church in its early days sharing their possessions with each other and for a lot of them, that wasn't much. Nevertheless, they gave freely and the church took care of them all. If the poor were poor then they were all poor. If the rich were rich then they were all rich. Everyone was on the same footing. There were times when they all slept in an upper room on blankets on the floor rich or poor.
We have two cars because my wife and I have our own ministries and we are out at different times and at the same times. With a situation like that anyone without a car would be given one from someone with two. Get the idea. Or if a family without a car needed to go out, someone always arrived in their car to take them. So the bottom line was that no one was in need.
In one episode a Jew tried to kill Pontius Pilate. He summoned the High Priest and told him to find the person and to bring him to Pontius. He said until he is found 10 jews will be crucified, every day. Until he was found and handed over, 10 Jews were crucified every day. Such was the barbarity of the Roman Empire.
And interestingly, every new convert was baptized by immersion immediately and wasn't adjudged a new convert until he was baptized by immersion. And there were many miraculous healings depicted. Perhaps Netflix understands things better than we do.
The one thing that is a stand out for me is the amount of suffering that new believers went through to remain loyal to their faith. Several of the characters were killed because they refused to renounce Jesus as the Messiah and others were regularly beaten. They had to hide and run all the time because there was a price on their heads both by the High Priest and Roman Governor. Pontius Pilate said that Jesus was a threat to the status quo.
I say has anything changed? The status quo in the church is not too fond of Jesus.
I could not imagine many believers today being willing to face what they faced and suffered what they suffered. But the fact is that the two were part and parcel of each other. Know Christ, know suffering and maybe death. Despite that they were consumed with spreading the good news of Jesus and if that meant death, so be it.
It showed the church in its early days sharing their possessions with each other and for a lot of them, that wasn't much. Nevertheless, they gave freely and the church took care of them all. If the poor were poor then they were all poor. If the rich were rich then they were all rich. Everyone was on the same footing. There were times when they all slept in an upper room on blankets on the floor rich or poor.
We have two cars because my wife and I have our own ministries and we are out at different times and at the same times. With a situation like that anyone without a car would be given one from someone with two. Get the idea. Or if a family without a car needed to go out, someone always arrived in their car to take them. So the bottom line was that no one was in need.
In one episode a Jew tried to kill Pontius Pilate. He summoned the High Priest and told him to find the person and to bring him to Pontius. He said until he is found 10 jews will be crucified, every day. Until he was found and handed over, 10 Jews were crucified every day. Such was the barbarity of the Roman Empire.
And interestingly, every new convert was baptized by immersion immediately and wasn't adjudged a new convert until he was baptized by immersion. And there were many miraculous healings depicted. Perhaps Netflix understands things better than we do.
I can see you now as an ambassador for the US to China, "greetings from son's and daughter's, never mind the name of the country".
Then Trump say "YOU'RE FIRED"!
LOL
Very well said. Good post. Albeit BreadOfDeath wont see it, he is completely blinded from the truth. He continues to say, "In the name of Jesus" means authority. What he will not acknowledge, is "Name" means "Name" ... and when we invoke Jesus NAME we invoke his authority. But the only authority BOL invokes is the word "son" - which has no authority.
Lets take a look at the NAME that has the Authority...
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
BOL would have that to say... "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his Authority Son"
And, he closes his eyes to scriptures such as this...
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
When we come to Matthew 28:19, and BOL is asked "what is that name", he says it is "father, son, holy ghost" - of which he was asked to produce the scripture with someone being baptized with the words "father, son, holy ghost" pronounced over them. He never produced any.
He can deny Jesus today, but in the end - Jesus will deny him.
Good post. Keep up the good work.
God Bless!
Last edited:
That happened because they, as the RCC, thought whatsoever they bound of earth was bound in heaven.
A bunch of commission robbers!
Amen, and we find Jesus thoroughly and completely explained in the Bible, not crazy commentary.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,942
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Yup - they should have known that Christ only built ONE Church - not their tens of thousands of sects - or yours . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,942
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
TRANSLATION:
"I have absolutely NO way of refuting your Biblical or historical facts."
That's what I thought . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,942
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Yup - so can the other tens of thousands disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach Him differently than YOU do.
What a mess you've all made . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,942
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And sadly - people like YOU can't tell the difference between Hollywood and reality . . .
THANK GOD we still have Early Church documents like The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) to compliment Scripture . . .
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you have been misguided.
Ezek. 36:25 – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)
2 Kings 5:14 – Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.
Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.
Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.
Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.
Mark 7:3 – the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).
Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.
Luke 11:38 – Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.
Acts 2:41 – at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.
Acts 8:38 – because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.
Acts 8:39 – because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.
Acts 9:18; 22:16 – Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.
Acts 10:47-48 – Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.
Acts 16:33 – the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.
Acts 2:17,18,33 – the pouring of water is like the “pouring” out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called “infusion” (of grace).
1 Cor. 10:2 – Paul says that the Israelites were baptized (“baptizo”) in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, “baptizo” does not mean immersed in these verses.
Eph. 4:5 – there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.
Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.
Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.
Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).
Isaiah 44:3 – the Lord “pours” water on the thirsty land and “pours” His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”
2 Thess. 2:15 – hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.
Last edited:
Similar threads
