Baptism in Jesus’ Name?

[Dave L]

With respect to whose context? Yours?

You decide.

 

[Dave L]

Whatever may be found in the Acts of the Apostles cannot contravene Matthew 28:19 -- the very words of Christ.

Perhaps Luke was simply abbreviating this by saying "In the name of Jesus". The Didache is a very early Christian writing which confirms that baptism was in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Today there are some Christians groups who believe in "Trine Immersion" -- once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit. But that may be taking things too far.

So Peter and the apostles were clueless?

 

[Enoch111]

So Peter and the apostles were clueless?

Did I suggest or even imply that?

Luke simply abbreviated what was stated in Matthew.

"The Name" = Ha Shem (for Jews) means GOD. Jews will avoid saying or writing G-O-D, and call God "ha Shem".

And Jesus is God. So Luke could have said either "in the name of God" or "in the name of Jesus" or " in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". All would be equivalent. But the actual wording of Mt 28:19 was in use as noted here in the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles from around 120 AD, or earlier) :

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 no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

 

[Dave L]

Did I suggest or even imply that?

Luke simply abbreviated what was stated in Matthew.

"The Name" = Ha Shem (for Jews) means GOD. Jews will avoid saying or writing G-O-D, and call God "ha Shem".

And Jesus is God. So Luke could have said either "in the name of God" or "in the name of Jesus" or " in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". All would be equivalent. But the actual wording of Mt 28:19 was in use as noted here in the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles from around 120 AD, or earlier) :

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 no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

So what's the problem? Peter knew what Jesus meant by what he said. Many times we go by what the word says, and ignore what it means.

 

[bbyrd009]

With respect to whose context? Yours?

You decide.

Again context determines the use of broad terms.

with all due respect i'm no longer sure you even know what the definition of "context" is now,
i think that is just something you have heard other exegesists say that impressed you so you started saying it.

but if that is not true, now is your chance, i/we am open to any contextual deviations that might indicate kurios somehow means "God" to Greek people ok, just understand why we am not holding oz breath here, you have had plenty of chance to make your context point if you really had one by now i guess, hoisting/petard and all that, what?

so g'by again, and have a nice week

 

[CoreIssue]

Water baptism is the outward sign and declaration of the inner baptism of the holy spirit.

Notices it says father, son and holy spirit not father, Jesus and holy spirit. This is speaking of the godhead, the three individual spirits who are all god individually and separately.

The flesh of Jesus is not God. God did not die on the cross or resurrect. God could not pay for sin, only a man, the second Adam could.

I think a lot of people tried to spin this issue into something it is not.

Fact is, water baptism saves no one.

 

[Dave L]

with all due respect i'm no longer sure you even know what the definition of "context" is now,
i think that is just something you have heard other exegesists say that impressed you so you started saying it.

but if that is not true, now is your chance, i/we am open to any contextual deviations that might indicate kurios somehow means "God" to Greek people ok, just understand why we am not holding oz breath here, you have had plenty of chance to make your context point if you really had one by now i guess, hoisting/petard and all that, what?

so g'by again, and have a nice week

Can't get much better.

 

[bbyrd009]

but if that is not true, now is your chance

aaand he's gone

 

[Helen]

Water baptism is the outward sign and declaration of the inner baptism of the holy spirit.

Notices it says father, son and holy spirit not father, Jesus and holy spirit. This is speaking of the godhead, the three individual spirits who are all god individually and separately.

The flesh of Jesus is not God. God did not die on the cross or resurrect. God could not pay for sin, only a man, the second Adam could.

I think a lot of people tried to spin this issue into something it is not.

Fact is, water baptism saves no one.

Amen! ....

 

[Enoch111]

God did not die on the cross or resurrect. God could not pay for sin, only a man, the second Adam could.

WE need to be careful to avoid separating the deity of Christ from His sinless humanity. It was indeed God who shed His precious blood for our redemption. And the Holy Spirit through Paul embedded this in Scripture.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God [Theos], which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Jesus of Nazareth was seen as BOTH the Son of Man and the Son of God at one and the same time. It was the Gnostics who tried to invent theories (heresies) in separating the deity and humanity of Christ.

 

[CoreIssue]

WE need to be careful to avoid separating the deity of Christ from His sinless humanity. It was indeed God who shed His precious blood for our redemption. And the Holy Spirit through Paul embedded this in Scripture.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God [Theos], which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Jesus of Nazareth was seen as BOTH the Son of Man and the Son of God at one and the same time. It was the Gnostics who tried to invent theories (heresies) in separatig the deity and humanity of Christ.

Well like it or not, the spirit of Christ is 100% God, his flesh 100% human and his mind both.

Spirits are immoral, they cannot die. They have neither flesh nor blood.

We as well are flesh, spirit and mind. Our flesh dies but our spirits and minds do not.

Can God die? | CARM.org

 

[Enoch111]

Well like it or not, the spirit of Christ is 100% God, his flesh 100% human and his mind both.

The body of Christ was indeed a human body, but His humanity was TOTALLY UNIQUE (which you failed to point out). Jesus of Nazareth was conceived supernaturally in the virgin Mary's womb, which ensured that He did not have a sin nature like the rest of humanity.

Therefore He was always sinless Man -- "without sin" meaning both (1) with no sin nature and (2) with no committed sins. And that is why "the blood of God" (manifest in the flesh) could be shed for our redemption.

As to the mind of Christ, is was always the mind of the GOD-MAN. Once again totally unique, and totally sinless.

 

[CoreIssue]

The body of Christ was indeed a human body, but His humanity was TOTALLY UNIQUE (which you failed to point out). Jesus of Nazareth was conceived supernaturally in the virgin Mary's womb, which ensured that He did not have a sin nature like the rest of humanity.

Therefore He was always sinless Man -- "without sin" meaning both (1) with no sin nature and (2) with no committed sins. And that is why "the blood of God" (manifest in the flesh) could be shed for our redemption.

As to the mind of Christ, is was always the mind of the GOD-MAN. Once again totally unique, and totally sinless.

His humanity was unique, but it was still fully human. He was in the condition of Adam before he sinned, thus the Second Adam.

Better study the bible more carefully, he was capable of sinning, but refused to do so. He had to be or could not pay for our sins.

No, the man part of his mind vanished when his body died. The mind is the" intersection" of the spirit and flesh.

Today, his spirit remains God, but it is in glorified human flesh.

God does not have blood. He was within human flesh, but was not human flesh.

Just like the dead in Christ are spirits without flesh and blood.

The only beings in heaven spoken of in the bible with flesh and blood are the Four Living Creatures, which I covered in the links you already got from me. And of course Enoch and Elijah.

He did not inherit Joseph's sin nature, which comes from male side. But he did get humanity from Mary.

What you are saying means God died.

 

[Enoch111]

Better study the bible more carefully, he was capable of sinning, but refused to do so.

Yeah, better study the Bible. Christ was INCAPABLE of sinning. And naturally, He refused to do so.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.(Heb 4:15) [No sin nature and no sinning]

What Christians should understand is that temptations are EXTERNAL. So Satan placed powerful external temptations before the Son of God, not knowing that he was INCAPABLE of sinning, and hoping he could make Christ commit a sin.

But external temptations can only cause a person to sin if the sin nature and its lusts are already within the soul (called "the heart" by Christ). So James shows us the progression of sin, and this could not possibly apply to the God-Man, since "God CANNOT be tempted with evil".

JAMES 1
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
(Verse 16 has a direct bearing on your error).

So the progression is as below:
Temptation (external)---->lust (internal)--->sin---->death

 

[Enoch111]

What you are saying means God died.

Of course the God-Man (Christ) died. Therefore He rose again the third day of His own volition. How come you have a problem with that? It was the Gnostic heretics who had a problem with that.

 

[CoreIssue]

Yeah, better study the Bible. Christ was INCAPABLE of sinning. And naturally, He refused to do so.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.(Heb 4:15) [No sin nature and no sinning]

What Christians should understand is that temptations are EXTERNAL. So Satan placed powerful external temptations before the Son of God, not knowing that he was INCAPABLE of sinning, and hoping he could make Christ commit a sin.

But external temptations can only cause a person to sin if the sin nature and its lusts are already within the soul (called "the heart" by Christ). So James shows us the progression of sin, and this could not possibly apply to the God-Man, since "God CANNOT be tempted with evil".

JAMES 1
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
(Verse 16 has a direct bearing on your error).

So the progression is as below:
Temptation (external)---->lust (internal)--->sin---->death

Will not be tempted is different from the capability of being tempted.

To die for our sins the the possibility of setting had to exist. Just like Adam, Satan and the fallen angels were created without sin nature, but chose to sin.

Think about it. Your stripping Christ of freewill.

 

[CoreIssue]

Of course the God-Man (Christ) died. Therefore He rose again the third day of His own volition. How come you have a problem with that? It was the Gnostic heretics who had a problem with that.

You just said God died.

 

[Helen]

Yeah, better study the Bible. Christ was INCAPABLE of sinning. And naturally, He refused to do so.

No way...you do the Lord a great disfavour here. If that be the case then He did not win over the Devil legally. He had an unfair advantage. Not so. He came, He lived, and He died as the Son of Man... He knew how to live in the Spirit 100% of the time.
We still go in and out of the Spirit.

He came and died as the only legal way that mankind could be set free from the sin of Adam's .

He came to do what no man could not do.
I am amazed that you of all people believe your post!

 

[FHII]

Concerning the OP, you are right. If you are going to baptize do so in the name of Jesus. There is a verse that hasn't been brought up:
Ephesians 3:14-15 KJV
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [15] Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

I am not a trinitarian. But if there is a trinity, and if it is a family, it has a name: Jesus Christ. So if you are baptizing in the name of Jesus Chist, you are also baptizing in the name of the father and the holy spirit. The whole family is named Jesus.

I know some are dismayed by me saying I am not a trinitarian... For the record, I believe in the Father the son and the holy ghost. I just don't separate them into 3 distinct persons.

 

[Enoch111]

...He had an unfair advantage...

Of course Christ had an unfair advantage. He was always God and He was always sinless Man (since birth). The devil thought that he had the advantage (as he had tricked Eve) but he found out differently.

Something to note is that the same three temptations which assaulted Eve were placed before Christ, but they rolled off Him like water off a duck's back. The devil left fuming and frustrated because he had to slink away with his tail between his legs.

He lived, and He died as the Son of Man...

... and also as the Son of the living God". Please note: When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?... And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mt 16:13,16)

Notice that Jesus said to Peter that this was no human (flesh and blood) revelation. It was God the Father in Heaven who gave Peter this revelation. So you and I should rejoice in this revelation. Jesus is both Son of Man and Son of God AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, since He is the God-Man. He remained the God-Man on the cross: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)