Search results

So, you admit the legal name of the son is Jesus? Good, so when Jesus said to baptize in the name of the "son" in Matt 28:19, he meant "Jesus", right?

How many here are in the bride of Christ but have not had his name invoked over you? ...c'mon, be honest.

You got 3 titles and no name. I am a father and a son too. You might as well have been baptized in my name. Now you know why you must take the name of the son legally. A bride must legally take her husband's name. Or else, the husband can say "I know you not".

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 on this forum tell me what the name of the son is?

Was Peter mistaken here?... 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Or, should he have said something like this?... 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and...

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Yes, it all started when I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of my sins like a good boy would...

Is this a command or suggestion?... And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Is the name Jesus or son? Is baptism both word and deed or not? Is this verse legalism?

What is the precise name of the son? #1...son? #2...Jesus? Pick one.

The Catholics obey Acts 2:38? Are you free from Acts 2:38's harsh command?

Would you rather obey Jesus than Peter?

Is this mean and legalistic of Peter?... 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...

A real Apostolic obeys Acts 2:38 and has the name of Jesus Christ spoken over them in baptism. The rest are Catholic relatives.

My point is simple. The RCC removed "in the name of Jesus Christ" from RCC baptisms. The reformers never shook her hook. They are still Catholics, just like you. You folks just don't realize it.

Is the actual name of the son, "son" or "Jesus"?

Do you write "son" on your checks to make it good?

Must say "in the name of Jesus Christ" to qualify baptism to remit sins per Acts 2:38. That is legal and binding per Peter. You will need a better lawyer to go against Peter than your seminary professor.

Nearly 95% of Christians have not obeyed Acts 2:38. No mention of Jesus' name in their baptism. The RCC removed the name of Jesus 1700 years ago, and the protestants follow mama in lock step.

God gave no NT commands to be saved? Peter was a legalist in Acts 2:38? Or, are you being led around by a strange teaching?

No, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Acts skippers, skip remission of sins.

Is this "legalism"?... 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. Baptism is both word and deed. Don't get duped by the RCC.