The Devil's Ministers

[Truther]

But what is your point?

The modernists "do away" with Acts 2:38, excusing it as "the Law", as they ignorantly say.."you're not saved by works".

The context of "not saved by works" via Paul is about the OT Law, not Spirit led works.

These folks are simply too lazy to obey Acts 2:38.

No wonder Trump lost the election by preaching "work".

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus never taught that water saves anyone.
He understood that His sacrificial death on The Cross is the offering of Salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:19

You've yet to understand the Gospel, and that is because a water cult has you teaching their baptismal regeneration heresy, doctrine of devils.
You are lost in that situation.

I don’t know of ANYONE who believes that water “saves” us – least of all the Catholic Church.
YOU made that up because of your ignorance of Catholic teaching – mixed with a really perverse sense of dishonesty.

I’m not sure what’s more pathetic about your posts – the lies you vomit out or the idiocy by which you do it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

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...

Do Catholics do things in the name of Jesus without saying it?

Never heard of that.

Please give me an example of how they pull it off?

Thanks.

Catholics, like MOST Christians with half a brain understand what “in the name of” means.

I’ve show this to you on multiple occasions.
Maybe it’ll stick this time . . .

From Macmillan Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - They said they came “in the name of peace.”

From Cambridge Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - "Open up in the name of the law" before they broke the door down.

From Thesaurus.com:
“In the name of” synonyms
1. THROUGH
2. THROUGH the agency of
3. Under the AUTHORITY of

From english.stackesxhange.com:
What does “in the name of…” actually mean?

Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding:

Old English nama, noma "name, reputation," from Proto-Germanic *namon
(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

In all cultures, people of authority have always lent their REPUTATION and their authority to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations.
The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

Here us an example from classic literature:
Victor Hugo's “Dramas” 1519, page 364:
“Richard Varney, in the name of God and Saint George we dub thee knight!”

This doesn’t state God’s “Singular name” as YOU keep insisting it must.

So, you see, Einstein – what I have been telling you ALL ALONG is correct.
What Peter said in Acts 2:238 was simply to be Baptized by the AUTHORITY OF Jesus Christ.

 

[atpollard]

HEY! Quit with the CATHOLIC bashing and Catholic APOLOGETIC!
This is a topic for PROTESTANT vs PROTESTANT bashing and lies!

(Catholics have PRIESTS and only Protestants have MINISTERS).

 

[Truther]

Catholics, like MOST Christians with half a brain understand what “in the name of” means.

I’ve show this to you on multiple occasions.
Maybe it’ll stick this time . . .

From Macmillan Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - They said they came “in the name of peace.”

From Cambridge Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - "Open up in the name of the law" before they broke the door down.

From Thesaurus.com:
“In the name of” synonyms
1. THROUGH
2. THROUGH the agency of
3. Under the AUTHORITY of

From english.stackesxhange.com:
What does “in the name of…” actually mean?

Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding:

Old English nama, noma "name, reputation," from Proto-Germanic *namon
(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

In all cultures, people of authority have always lent their REPUTATION and their authority to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations.
The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

Here us an example from classic literature:
Victor Hugo's “Dramas” 1519, page 364:
“Richard Varney, in the name of God and Saint George we dub thee knight!”

This doesn’t state God’s “Singular name” as YOU keep insisting it must.

So, you see, Einstein – what I have been telling you ALL ALONG is correct.
What Peter said in Acts 2:238 was simply to be Baptized by the AUTHORITY OF Jesus Christ.

With all of that commentary, you just did away with the name of Jesus. Congratulations Catholic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

With all of that commentary, you just did away with the name of Jesus. Congratulations Catholic.

The fact that YOU think that ANYBODY can “do away” with the name of Jesus speaks volumes about your lack of faith. Didn’t means to confuse you with the truth.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of the English language with its etymologies and idioms would enable ANYONE to understand that “In the name of” simply means, “By the Authority of" – and is NOT about proper names.

Good grief . . .


PS - "STOP, in the name of the law!!"
According to YOUR logic - shouldn't "Law" have a proper naame?

 

[Truther]

The fact that YOU think that ANYBODY can “do away” with the name of Jesus speaks volumes about your lack of faith. Didn’t means to confuse you with the truth.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of the English language with its etymologies and idioms would enable ANYONE to understand that “In the name of” simply means, “By the Authority of" – and is NOT about proper names.

Good grief . . .


PS - "STOP, in the name of the law!!"
According to YOUR logic - shouldn't "Law" have a proper naame?

You and your Roman Catholic cronies have all conspired to do away with the name of Jesus Christ in water baptism for the remission of sins. Their master plan began in the fourth century A.D. and continues until today. Nearly All of the Protestants are implicated in the same crime. All of you should be judged according to your works as you have done away with the name of Jesus Christ and consequently, remission of sins per Acts 2:38.
Shame on you Catholic.

You are not of the 1st century church, nor your anti Acts 2:38 cohorts.

You have no remission of sins.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You and your Roman Catholic cronies have all conspired to do away with the name of Jesus Christ in water baptism for the remission of sins. Their master plan began in the fourth century A.D. and continues until today. Nearly All of the Protestants are implicated in the same crime. All of you should be judged according to your works as you have done away with the name of Jesus Christ and consequently, remission of sins per Acts 2:38.
Shame on you Catholic.

You are not of the 1st century church, nor your anti Acts 2:38 cohorts.

You have no remission of sins.

Such fervor and passion for such an erroneous and FALSE position.
What a waste . . .

If you’re NOT Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy spirit – as Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:19-20) – you are NOT Baptized.
Shame on YOU, Lone Ranger infidel . . .

 

[Truther]

Such fervor and passion for such an erroneous and FALSE position.
What a waste . . .

If you’re NOT Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy spirit – as Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:19-20) – you are NOT Baptized.
Shame on YOU, Lone Ranger infidel . . .

I was baptized in the name(singular name) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost(titles of the particular name).

It is the Roman Catholic that cannot figure out what that particular name is.

They think the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Father, Son and Holy Ghost....LOL.

They need English tutors.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was baptized in the name(singular name) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost(titles of the particular name).

It is the Roman Catholic that cannot figure out what that particular name is.
They think the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Father, Son and Holy Ghost....LOL.

They need English tutors.

How sad that you don’t know that “Jesus” is the name of the Son (Matt. 1:21) – and NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit.

What’s even sadder is that you refuse to accept that “In the name of” is an idiom for “By the Authority of” – even after ALL of the evidence I gave you.

BUT – the saddest part of all is that you’re NOT Baptized per Jesus’s command in Matt. 28:19.
Good luck with all o0f those nervous “LOL’s” when He judges you . . .

 

[Truther]

How sad that you don’t know that “Jesus” is the name of the Son (Matt. 1:21) – and NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit.

What’s even sadder is that you refuse to accept that “In the name of” is an idiom for “By the Authority of” – even after ALL of the evidence I gave you.

BUT – the saddest part of all is that you’re NOT Baptized per Jesus’s command in Matt. 28:19.
Good luck with all o0f those nervous “LOL’s” when He judges you . . .

Jesus is the name of the son per Matt 28:19, correct?...

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus is the name of the son per Matt 28:19, correct?...

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

Jesus is NOT the name of the Father – nor is it the name of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:10).
Sooooo, according to YOUR warped understanding that He actually meant proper names – WHAT proper names do you use for the Father and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Truther]

Jesus is NOT the name of the Father – nor is it the name of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:10).
Sooooo, according to YOUR warped understanding that He actually meant proper names – WHAT proper names do you use for the Father and the Holy Spirit?

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


A...Jesus.

B...son.

Pick one.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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


A...Jesus.

B...son.

Pick one.

I believe Matthew 28:19 is saying to be baptized into the name of Jesus, as well.
Jesus was saying that the disciples were to baptize in the name (singular) that represents all three persons of the Godhead or Trinity.
This is Jesus. For the fulness of the Godhead welled within the man Christ Jesus (Colossians 2:19). For Jesus is the name above all names (Philippians 2:19). So this is why we see the disciples baptize in the name of Jesus at Pentecost and aftewards.

 

[Truther]

I believe Matthew 28:19 is saying to be baptized into the name of Jesus, as well.
Jesus was saying that the disciples were to baptize in the name (singular) that represents all three persons of the Godhead or Trinity.
This is Jesus. For the fulness of the Godhead welled within the man Christ Jesus (Colossians 2:19). For Jesus is the name above all names (Philippians 2:19). So this is why we see the disciples baptize in the name of Jesus at Pentecost and aftewards.

Excellent answer my friend.

The name of the son per Matt 28:19 is Jesus, thus the early church always and only baptized in the name of Jesus.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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


A...Jesus.

B...son.

Pick one.

The Son's name ISN'T mentioned in Matt. 28:19, Einstein:

Matt. 28:19
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​

Besides - the Father doesn't have a name, nor does the Holy spirit - so YOUR idiotic insistence that Jesus was talking about proper names is moot.
This is proof positive that He was instead alking about AUTHORITY . . .

 

[Truther]

The Son's name ISN'T mentioned in Matt. 28:19, Einstein:

Matt. 28:19​

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​

Besides - the Father doesn't have a name, nor does the Holy spirit - so YOUR idiotic insistence that Jesus was talking about proper names is moot.
This is proof positive that He was instead alking about AUTHORITY . . .

That is not what I asked.

I asked what the name of the Son is per Matt 28:19?

A...son.

B....Jehovah Jr.

C...Jesus.


Pick one, please.

 

[Illuminator]

That is not what I asked.

I asked what the name of the Son is per Matt 28:19?

A...son.

B....Jehovah Jr.

C...Jesus.


Pick one, please.

​

Pick one, please:​

A.... Isaiha 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman[a][b] shall conceive and bear[c] a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.[d] (Hebrew meaning: God is with us)

B....Luke 1:42 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High...

C...."what the name of the Son is per Matt 28:19?" JESUS.

A, B and C are correct. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Truther]

​

Pick one, please:​

A.... Isaiha 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman[a][b] shall conceive and bear[c] a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.[d] (Hebrew meaning: God is with us)

B....Luke 1:42 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High...

C...."what the name of the Son is per Matt 28:19?" JESUS.

A, B and C are correct. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

So, the name of the son per Matt 28:19 is "son of the most high" ?

Is your name AKA "son of my parents"?

The name of the son per Matt 28:19 is "Emannuel"?

Then why don't you say to the folks "I baptize in the name of the son of the most high, Emmanuel"?

Also, why don't you baptize in the name "wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father and prince of peace" etc?

"Son'" covers all these?

Is this what you do and think?

Howbout all these are AKA for JESUS?

 

[BreadOfLife]

That is not what I asked.

I asked what the name of the Son is per Matt 28:19?

A...son.

B....Jehovah Jr.

C...Jesus.


Pick one, please.

And I already told you – the Son’s name ISN’T mentioned in Matt. 28:19,

“Per”, means “according to”, Einstein. So, per Matt. 28:19 – there is NO proper name for the Son. We read in OTHER verses that His name is Jesus. However – you have YET to tell me the proper name of the Father and the Holy Spirit – so your entire argument about proper names is DEAD in the water.

Not very bright – are you?