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

  • 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!

Status
Not open for further replies.

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,977
3,418
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I see what the RCC is saying now...
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, INCLUDING YOU SINFUL INFANTS in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your INFANT children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
LOL
Sooooo - is is just that you can't answer the question - or that ius scares you?

ONE
more time . . .
HOW did all of thgose 8-day-old babies entered into a Covenant with God in the OT?
Remember - a "Covenant" by definition is an solemn AGREEMENT between 2 parties.

This question is for you and ALL of the other who share your idiotuic understanding of Acts 2:38-39 . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,977
3,418
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wrong.
The son was born before anything else per Col 1.
The son was also the first to die before anything else per Rev 13.
The son was also the first to resurrect, even before any OT persons.
God knew Jesus, the man, from the foundation of the world.
God transcends time.
You think all this was the 2nd person of a trinity having a "human attachment" dangling from his Spirit person.
Ick!
Another idiotic perversion of Scripture.
Gee - it's NO WONDER why Peter wrote the following about YOU:
2 Pet. 3:16

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Time for another Bible and Linguistics lesson . . .
Col. 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Ummmm, where does Paul say that Jesus was "created" in Col. 1:15?? The term, "Firstborn" is simply a title of pre-eminence given by a father to his son.
Besides - you have another problem, Jehova's Witness. tTe very NEXT verse states that He created ALL things:
Col. 1:16

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS have been created through him and for him.

You JW's add the word "other" to this verse to get around the fact that Jesus is the Creator.
So,m repent befotre the following words from Jesus find YOU in a frightening position . . .

Matt. 10:33
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
 

RR144

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
598
290
63
61
INDIANA
www.kingdomherald.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
“In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” With this statement, a candidate is baptized and welcomed as a new member of the body of Christ. The phrase taken from Matthew 28:19 followed Jesus' command to baptize all nations. But is this phrase really the saying of Jesus? Or was the scripture altered during the third century to support the development of the doctrine of the trinity?

Since the concession that 1 John 5:7 is spurious, only Matthew 28:19 remains as a scriptural support for the triune name. That is why the triple formula, “father, son and holy spirit:' formed the framework of the Apostles' Creed. Oxford scholar Moberly (1902) claimed Matthew 28:19 to be a “solemn precept to baptize in the name of the holy Trinity, which fell from the divine lips of the newly risen Lord”

Because this scripture is important to the trinitarian belief, there has been little interest in pursuing its authenticity. Yet some scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries believe the scripture was altered. James Martineau, in Seat of Authority, says that the “very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor.”

In History of Dogma, Adolph Harnack claims Matthew 28:19 is “no word of the Lord” Even the cautious critic Canon Armitage Robinson, in Encyclopedia Biblica, says that Matthew “does not here report the (very words) of Jesus, but transfers to him the familiar language of the church of the Evangelist's own time and locality.”

There are early church writers who also seem to support these views. Eusebius, a fourth century writer, had the greatest library of any early church scribe. It contained manuscripts of the New Testament that were at least 200 years older than any existing today. Manuscripts copied by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others not available today gave him access to almost original material. Eusebius cites Matthew 28:19 eighteen times in his work, always in the same form: “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you”.

When he comments on the verse, Eusebius places great stress on the phrase, “in my name.” Apparently his sources, Origen, Clement and Justin Martyr, excluded “father” and “holy spirit” from this scripture.

Justin Martyr wrote between 130 A.D. and 140 A.D. While much of his work is no longer available, there is a passage that is generally thought to be a reference to Matthew 28:19:

“God hath not yet inflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today ARE BEING MADE DISCIPLES IN THE NAME OF HIS CHRIST, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illumined by the name of this Christ.”

Aphraates, a Syriac writer of the middle-fourth century, cites the text in yet a different manner, “Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.”

It probably was not until the middle of the third century that the current rendering of Matthew 28:19 appeared when Bishop Cyprian of Rome insisted on the triple formula for baptism. Ironically, Pope Stephen used only one name, Jesus.

During the fourth century, the orthodox church used the phrase, “in the name of the father, son and holy ghost” as a battle cry against the Macedonians who claimed that no New Testament text supported the spirit as part of the trinity. However, by the seventh century the church had wholeheartedly accepted the current rendering of the scripture, and excommunicated the Celtic church for insisting on one name in baptism.

In 1902, the modern scholar F.C. Conybeare summed up the history of the development of Matthew 28:19 as follows: “It is worth considering, however, whether the original text of the gospel did not end at the word 'nations,' and whether the three rival endings of the text were not developed independently, viz: (i) 'in my name' in Justin, Eusebius, and perhaps Stephen of Rome and the Pneumato-machi (ii) 'and they shall believe in me, in Aphraates, representing the older Syriac version (iii) 'baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost; or similar in the Greek gnostic Theodotus, Tertullian Latin version of Irenaeus, and the surviving Greek MSS.”

There are four instances of baptism by the Apostles recorded in the book of Acts. In each instance, only the name of Jesus is used in connection with the baptism.

Acts 2:38. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost was followed by a call to those who would become followers of Jesus: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (NIV)

Acts 8:16. Philip preached throughout Samaria and gained several converts. However, when Peter and John arrived, those converts had not received the gifts of the spirit that normally accompanied conversion in those days. They then laid their hands upon them, “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS” (NIV)

Acts 10:48. Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, was baptized after a lengthy conversation with Peter: “So he ordered that they be baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.” (NIV)

Acts 19:5. Paul's initial encounter with the brethren at Ephesus caused him concern as they had been baptized by Apollos with John's baptism. He instructed them regarding Jesus: “On hearing this, they were baptized INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS” (NIV)

Although Matthew 28:19 has not yet been agreed upon by a majority of scholars as spurious, there is certainly enough evidence to limit its use. At least it would be wise to consider it inappropriate for use in baptism, given its questionable history.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,977
3,418
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
“In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” With this statement, a candidate is baptized and welcomed as a new member of the body of Christ. The phrase taken from Matthew 28:19 followed Jesus' command to baptize all nations. But is this phrase really the saying of Jesus? Or was the scripture altered during the third century to support the development of the doctrine of the trinity?

Since the concession that 1 John 5:7 is spurious, only Matthew 28:19 remains as a scriptural support for the triune name. That is why the triple formula, “father, son and holy spirit:' formed the framework of the Apostles' Creed. Oxford scholar Moberly (1902) claimed Matthew 28:19 to be a “solemn precept to baptize in the name of the holy Trinity, which fell from the divine lips of the newly risen Lord”

Because this scripture is important to the trinitarian belief, there has been little interest in pursuing its authenticity. Yet some scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries believe the scripture was altered. James Martineau, in Seat of Authority, says that the “very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor.”

In History of Dogma, Adolph Harnack claims Matthew 28:19 is “no word of the Lord” Even the cautious critic Canon Armitage Robinson, in Encyclopedia Biblica, says that Matthew “does not here report the (very words) of Jesus, but transfers to him the familiar language of the church of the Evangelist's own time and locality.”

There are early church writers who also seem to support these views. Eusebius, a fourth century writer, had the greatest library of any early church scribe. It contained manuscripts of the New Testament that were at least 200 years older than any existing today. Manuscripts copied by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others not available today gave him access to almost original material. Eusebius cites Matthew 28:19 eighteen times in his work, always in the same form: “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you”.

When he comments on the verse, Eusebius places great stress on the phrase, “in my name.” Apparently his sources, Origen, Clement and Justin Martyr, excluded “father” and “holy spirit” from this scripture.

Justin Martyr wrote between 130 A.D. and 140 A.D. While much of his work is no longer available, there is a passage that is generally thought to be a reference to Matthew 28:19:

“God hath not yet inflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today ARE BEING MADE DISCIPLES IN THE NAME OF HIS CHRIST, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illumined by the name of this Christ.”

Aphraates, a Syriac writer of the middle-fourth century, cites the text in yet a different manner, “Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.”

It probably was not until the middle of the third century that the current rendering of Matthew 28:19 appeared when Bishop Cyprian of Rome insisted on the triple formula for baptism. Ironically, Pope Stephen used only one name, Jesus.

During the fourth century, the orthodox church used the phrase, “in the name of the father, son and holy ghost” as a battle cry against the Macedonians who claimed that no New Testament text supported the spirit as part of the trinity. However, by the seventh century the church had wholeheartedly accepted the current rendering of the scripture, and excommunicated the Celtic church for insisting on one name in baptism.

In 1902, the modern scholar F.C. Conybeare summed up the history of the development of Matthew 28:19 as follows: “It is worth considering, however, whether the original text of the gospel did not end at the word 'nations,' and whether the three rival endings of the text were not developed independently, viz: (i) 'in my name' in Justin, Eusebius, and perhaps Stephen of Rome and the Pneumato-machi (ii) 'and they shall believe in me, in Aphraates, representing the older Syriac version (iii) 'baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost; or similar in the Greek gnostic Theodotus, Tertullian Latin version of Irenaeus, and the surviving Greek MSS.”

There are four instances of baptism by the Apostles recorded in the book of Acts. In each instance, only the name of Jesus is used in connection with the baptism.

Acts 2:38. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost was followed by a call to those who would become followers of Jesus: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (NIV)

Acts 8:16. Philip preached throughout Samaria and gained several converts. However, when Peter and John arrived, those converts had not received the gifts of the spirit that normally accompanied conversion in those days. They then laid their hands upon them, “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS” (NIV)

Acts 10:48. Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, was baptized after a lengthy conversation with Peter: “So he ordered that they be baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.” (NIV)

Acts 19:5. Paul's initial encounter with the brethren at Ephesus caused him concern as they had been baptized by Apollos with John's baptism. He instructed them regarding Jesus: “On hearing this, they were baptized INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS” (NIV)

Although Matthew 28:19 has not yet been agreed upon by a majority of scholars as spurious, there is certainly enough evidence to limit its use. At least it would be wise to consider it inappropriate for use in baptism, given its questionable history.
Thank you for that cut-and-paste job from your Jehovah's Witness site.

However - as JW's usually do - you ommitted the fact that EVERY one of those Early Church Fathers you mentiuoned used the Trinitarian Baptismal formula in their writings of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
This was referenced back in post #273 - had you bothered to look . . .
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,300
1,480
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sooooo - is is just that you can't answer the question - or that ius scares you?

ONE
more time . . .
HOW did all of thgose 8-day-old babies entered into a Covenant with God in the OT?
Remember - a "Covenant" by definition is an solemn AGREEMENT between 2 parties.

This question is for you and ALL of the other who share your idiotuic understanding of Acts 2:38-39 . . .
The covenant was to the adults, not the kids.

Do you think the 8 day old babies voluntarily partook of the covenant?

Probably.

Did you know that the heart is circumcised now?

Obviously, yours is not, lest you could understand what circumcision represents to the believer today.

I answered this along time ago, which you mentally blocked out.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,300
1,480
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Another idiotic perversion of Scripture.
Gee - it's NO WONDER why Peter wrote the following about YOU:
2 Pet. 3:16

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Time for another Bible and Linguistics lesson . . .
Col. 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Ummmm, where does Paul say that Jesus was "created" in Col. 1:15?? The term, "Firstborn" is simply a title of pre-eminence given by a father to his son.
Besides - you have another problem, Jehova's Witness. tTe very NEXT verse states that He created ALL things:
Col. 1:16

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS have been created through him and for him.

You JW's add the word "other" to this verse to get around the fact that Jesus is the Creator.
So,m repent befotre the following words from Jesus find YOU in a frightening position . . .

Matt. 10:33
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
BOL..."I'll huff and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down"!


....as he skips Acts 2:38 and alienates himself from the 3000 at Pentecost....LOL
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
2,597
724
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The covenant was to the adults, not the kids. Do you think the 8 day old babies voluntarily partook of the covenant?
Circumcision was not about the kids, Truther. Neither is baptism in the case of infants, but rather the parents and their faith in God and His promise to work through them as parents and at the time of His choosing to give the child new birth in the Spirit, thereby placing the child in Christ as He has them (the parents). This was the sacrament of circumcision, which has been replaced by the sacrament of baptism. The promise is for everyone, so the sacrament should be administered as early in life as possible. The hope is that the child would never know a day that he/she did not know God as the author and finisher of his/her faith.

Grace and peace to you.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,300
1,480
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Circumcision was not about the kids, Truther. Neither is baptism in the case of infants, but rather the parents and their faith in God and His promise to work through them as parents and at the time of His choosing to give the child new birth in the Spirit, thereby placing the child in Christ as He has them (the parents). This was the sacrament of circumcision, which has been replaced by the sacrament of baptism. The promise is for everyone, so the sacrament should be administered as early in life as possible. The hope is that the child would never know a day that he/she did not know God as the author and finisher of his/her faith.

Grace and peace to you.
Fact is, during voluntary baptism per Acts 2:38, the heart is circumcised.

A pact is made in the heart with God as remission of sins is obtained via baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

This operation of God is amazing...you take a step towards God and He takes it towards you.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
2,597
724
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Fact is, during voluntary baptism per Acts 2:38, the heart is circumcised. A pact is made in the heart with God as remission of sins is obtained via baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. This operation of God is amazing...you take a step towards God and He takes it towards you.
Hm... Truther, you... Well, I'll just offer this:

Regarding circumcision, Truther, according to Paul in Philippians 3:3, we ~ we who are in Christ, who worship by the Spirit of God, and thus are the true people of God (Jew and Gentile believers) ~ are the circumcision. We ~ together, as one ~ have been "cut away" from the world and are thus the remnant (which is still growing at this point) God has saved unto Himself. And this is an act of God, not attributable to us in any way.

The sacrament of circumcision of the Old Testament was not a saving act at all to any degree, but pointed to ~ was an outward sign unto us of ~ the inward act of God, which is what saves. By the same token, the sacrament of water baptism of the New Testament is not a saving act at all to any degree, but points to ~ is an outward sign unto us of ~ the inward act of God, which is what saves. In both cases, it was an outward sign of the covenant ~ God's promise to effect salvation in the people of His choosing, His elect, by spiritual circumcision... cutting away from the world and unto God by the Spirit. The outward signs of circumcision in the Old Testament and water baptism in the New Testament were/are for our benefit, certainly, but not effectual unto salvation.

God's purposes and actions, especially regarding His salvation, do not depend on ours; it is the other way around. So Peter, in Acts 2:38, is calling on all folks ~ exhorting them, not commanding them ~ to respond to God's grace and to (as I have said) make their calling and election sure ~ not to "ratify" it, or somehow complete what's left out there hanging like some carrot on a string (that's quite ridiculous), but to acknowledge it and make it known to all, that they may see what God has done in them and promises to do in their children.

Grace and peace to you.
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
23,863
40,671
113
52
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Fact is, during voluntary baptism per Acts 2:38, the heart is circumcised.

A pact is made in the heart with God as remission of sins is obtained via baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

This operation of God is amazing...you take a step towards God and He takes it towards you.
The heart is circumsized not by water but by the SPIRIT .
Now i am a stickler to the biblical pattern . THUS we ought to be water baptized .
However its not what circumsizes the heart , THE SPIRIT does this . Its all about FAITH IN CHRIST .
and if our faith be true , we are hearers and doers of all that HE did teach . Thus we would be water baptized
as well as all other things both HE and those apostels did teach , we would be doers of it .
A lamb hungers for the TRUTH . FOR GOD has put the love of truth upon the heart of a lamb .
A new creature that loves the things of GOD and hates what he calls evil .
But again , it is the SPIRIT that circumsizes the heart . I see and have seen
two tragedies . Many whose faith not truly in Christ go down into the water
only to come up that same old man . The water is simply water .
ITS THE HEART that matters . And i see many who also think we ought not to be water baptized . Wrong again .
IF The early church did it , WE DO IT . See how simple that is .
But the water cannot circumsize the heart . Its only water my friend . THE SPIRIT circumsizes that which no man
or earthly object can circumsize , AND THAT IS THE HEART . Now let all that names of the glorious name of
JESUS depart from inquity and be heares and doers of all things He did teach and later the aposetls would teach .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,977
3,418
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The covenant was to the adults, not the kids. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]
Do you think the 8 day old babies voluntarily partook of the covenant?
Probably.
Did you know that the heart is circumcised now?
Obviously, yours is not, lest you could understand what circumcision represents to the believer today.
I answered this along time ago, which you mentally blocked out.
WRONG, Einstein.

Jewish males entered into the Covenant with God at EIGHT DAYS OLD by being circumcised.
They entered into a solemn agereement with God - and they were INFANTS.

So - HOW is this possible if Infant Baptism is NOT?
Take your time - and try not to hurt yourself . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,977
3,418
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BOL..."I'll huff and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down"!
....as he skips Acts 2:38 and alienates himself from the 3000 at Pentecost....LOL
Ummmm - if you can't address the rock-solid pounts I made that SINKK your argument - just say so, JW.
I'm ALWAYS willing to accept an apology . . .
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,300
1,480
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hm... Truther, you... Well, I'll just offer this:

Regarding circumcision, Truther, according to Paul in Philippians 3:3, we ~ we who are in Christ, who worship by the Spirit of God, and thus are the true people of God (Jew and Gentile believers) ~ are the circumcision. We ~ together, as one ~ have been "cut away" from the world and are thus the remnant (which is still growing at this point) God has saved unto Himself. And this is an act of God, not attributable to us in any way.

The sacrament of circumcision of the Old Testament was not a saving act at all to any degree, but pointed to ~ was an outward sign unto us of ~ the inward act of God, which is what saves. By the same token, the sacrament of water baptism of the New Testament is not a saving act at all to any degree, but points to ~ is an outward sign unto us of ~ the inward act of God, which is what saves. In both cases, it was an outward sign of the covenant ~ God's promise to effect salvation in the people of His choosing, His elect, by spiritual circumcision... cutting away from the world and unto God by the Spirit. The outward signs of circumcision in the Old Testament and water baptism in the New Testament were/are for our benefit, certainly, but not effectual unto salvation.

God's purposes and actions, especially regarding His salvation, do not depend on ours; it is the other way around. So Peter, in Acts 2:38, is calling on all folks ~ exhorting them, not commanding them ~ to respond to God's grace and to (as I have said) make their calling and election sure ~ not to "ratify" it, or somehow complete what's left out there hanging like some carrot on a string (that's quite ridiculous), but to acknowledge it and make it known to all, that they may see what God has done in them and promises to do in their children.

Grace and peace to you.
Via water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, our heart is circumcised.

Minus water baptism for the remission of sins, a sinners heart is uncircumcised.

Those that oppose obeying Acts 2:38 have a stony, uncircumcised heart.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,300
1,480
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The heart is circumsized not by water but by the SPIRIT .
Now i am a stickler to the biblical pattern . THUS we ought to be water baptized .
However its not what circumsizes the heart , THE SPIRIT does this . Its all about FAITH IN CHRIST .
and if our faith be true , we are hearers and doers of all that HE did teach . Thus we would be water baptized
as well as all other things both HE and those apostels did teach , we would be doers of it .
A lamb hungers for the TRUTH . FOR GOD has put the love of truth upon the heart of a lamb .
A new creature that loves the things of GOD and hates what he calls evil .
But again , it is the SPIRIT that circumsizes the heart . I see and have seen
two tragedies . Many whose faith not truly in Christ go down into the water
only to come up that same old man . The water is simply water .
ITS THE HEART that matters . And i see many who also think we ought not to be water baptized . Wrong again .
IF The early church did it , WE DO IT . See how simple that is .
But the water cannot circumsize the heart . Its only water my friend . THE SPIRIT circumsizes that which no man
or earthly object can circumsize , AND THAT IS THE HEART . Now let all that names of the glorious name of
JESUS depart from inquity and be heares and doers of all things He did teach and later the aposetls would teach .
To be specific, the name of Jesus spoken while in the water remits sins, so the surgery of the heart can take place.

Sinners are uncircumcised and not baptized.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,300
1,480
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG, Einstein.

Jewish males entered into the Covenant with God at EIGHT DAYS OLD by being circumcised.
They entered into a solemn agereement with God - and they were INFANTS.

So - HOW is this possible if Infant Baptism is NOT?
Take your time - and try not to hurt yourself . . .
How did an 8 day old male enter a covenant when they were too young to crawl or speak?

Do Catholic infants crawl up to the sprinkling trough and request the squirt gun shower?

They must be quite mature.

Or, do their parents do it in proxy?

C'mon Catholic, the deal was a covenant with MALES only in Israel.

If it represented baptism only, then YOU DO NOT baptize females per scripture.

Catholics circumcise the ladies...LOL
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,977
3,418
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How did an 8 day old male enter a covenant when they were too young to crawl or speak?
Do Catholic infants crawl up to the sprinkling trough and request the squirt gun shower?
They must be quite mature.
Or, do their parents do it in proxy?
C'mon Catholic, the deal was a covenant with MALES only in Israel.
If it represented baptism only, then YOU DO NOT baptize females per scripture.

Catholics circumcise the ladies...LOL
That'a the questioon I asked YOU, JW.
So, do you have an answer?

As to your other idiotic remarks in RED - females in the Old Covenant were not on the same level as males.
In the New Covenant, we are in Christ, where there is NO "Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female" (Gal. 3:28),

So - if you spent as much time studying your Bible as you do "LOL"-ing - you might learn somethin' . . .
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,300
1,480
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That'a the questioon I asked YOU, JW.
So, do you have an answer?

As to your other idiotic remarks in RED - females in the Old Covenant were not on the same level as males.
In the New Covenant, we are in Christ, where there is NO "Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female" (Gal. 3:28),

So - if you spent as much time studying your Bible as you do "LOL"-ing - you might learn somethin' . . .
If water baptism in the NT is the sole equivalent of Circumcision in the OT, then you are baptizing the majority of your infant constituents illegally.

Now you admit the infant girls are not on the same level to be baptized in the RCC.

Since you claim it is not specifically an operation of the heart, you are illegal in both the OT and NT.

You are in your own RCC testament, the Pope's testament...LOL
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
23,863
40,671
113
52
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To be specific, the name of Jesus spoken while in the water remits sins, so the surgery of the heart can take place.

Sinners are uncircumcised and not baptized.
The surgery of that took place long before i was baptized .
God had already changed my heart my friend . It was may thirtieth of two thousand and six .
A day like any other . I started out with the old heart and old man ,
but later that day , I was pricked in the conscious and everything FLIPPED AROUND .
A whole new hunger for GOD had began . I got so immersed in that bible and all was new my friend .
A few months later i was led to get water baptized .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.