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

[Enoch111]

Can anyone tell me what this specific name is?

The "name" in this verse is Yahweh (YHWH = the LORD). It is applicable to both the Father and the Son. By extension it would also be applicable to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Truther]

Boys will be boys, and we all like to have a laugh now and then. Maybe one day you should tell them to go the the front of the class and teach, and then you can go to the back and have your little laugh.

Before they teach the church they must join the church via obeying Acts 2:38, agreed?

 

[Truther]

I agree. And, simultaneously they desire to be saved, so they resolve this via baptism by Matt 28:19 which makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, while not really acknowledging Jesus. Seems like they found another way into the kingdom.

John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Amen..."anything nut in the name of Jesus,... anything".

The thought of that name spoken over them in baptism just sickens them.

That is the last thing in life they would want to do.

Weird.

 

[Truther]

Jesus DOESN'T specify any particular names in this verse.
He gives the TITLES of the Persons of the Trinity.- the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Are you REALLY this dense?

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

Now that is the definition of dense.

 

[Truther]

This is like arguing with a box of rocks.
Correction - make that TWO boxes of rocks . . .

I was replying to the asinine question from @Truther:
"What is the name of the son as specified by Jesus in the verse(Matt 28:19) that you posted, RC?"

As I pointed out to BOTH of you geniuses - Jesus NEVER specifies a name here.
He simply give three TITLES: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Let me know when that sinks in - however, I won't hold my breath.
It's difficult to penetrae rock . . .

Do all Catholics teach that the specific name of the son per Matt 28:19 that Jesus commanded to be baptized in is "son"?

Are they parrots or disciples?

A parrot would parrot the words of Jesus instead of actually baptizing in the name of the son.....

 

[Bob Estey]

Before they teach the church they must join the church via obeying Acts 2:38, agreed?

Yes, that would be helpful. (A lot of people are teaching and don't have a clue what they are talking about.) Let me remind you of something:

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. Matthew 23:8 RSV

 

[Truther]

Yep, it’s the same name as the one who commanded it in that verse.

Amen, the name Jesus commanded them to use per the son in Matt 28:19 is "Jesus", specifically.

This is why the book of Acts uses ONLY the name of Jesus during baptisms.

Modern Christendom has a completed NT but will not read it.

 

[Truther]

The "name" in this verse is Yahweh (YHWH = the LORD). It is applicable to both the Father and the Son. By extension it would also be applicable to the Holy Spirit.

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

Please show me a verse in the NT that has the disciples baptizing in the name of "YHWH"?

If there is no verse, you are telling a whopper.

 

[Truther]

Yes, that would be helpful. (A lot of people are teaching and don't have a clue what they are talking about.) Let me remind you of something:

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. Matthew 23:8 RSV

Yes, it would be akin to me teaching on the gifts of the Spirit without having the Holy Ghost.

Not cool.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see your still doing your chicken dance pecking around the floor. There are details of baptisms taking place with the Name of Jesus...

Acts 2:38 "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."

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus)."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus."

Now then, show me baptisms in the same fashion above, using the words, "Father, Son, Holy Ghost"

I'm still waiting. <---insert jeopardy theme music--->

WOW - I overestimated your abilities. I guess I'll have to dumb-it-down even more.
I'll just go verse-by-verse to make it easy on you . . .

Acts 2:38 "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."
This is an INVITATION to the crowd to be Baptized - a FUTURE EVENT.
NO Baptism is taking place here.

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus)."
This is a descriptuin of PAST EVENT - of someone HAVING BEEN Baptized.
NO Baptism is taking place here.

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus."
Once again, Einstein - this is a descriptuin of PAST EVENT - of someone HAVING BEEN Baptized.
NO Baptism is taking place here.

There is not ONE SINGLE Baptism ritual chronicled in the ENTIRE NT.
We get the WORDS of Baptism from Scripture (Matt. 28:19) and Sacred Tradition (The Didache).

Now - are you EVER going to answr my question about how you reject the Didache when it comesa to Baptism - yet you wholeheartedly accept the Didache when it comes to the ending doxology of the Lord's Prayer ("For thine is the kingdon . . .")??

Why are you so afraid to answer the question??

 

[Enoch111]

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

That verse simply says "in the name of" and lists the three divine persons in the Godhead. Since you wanted to know what that name was, you were given the name. Now you wish to argue because the name is not in that verse, even though it is in other verses.

And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD (YHWH) (Gen 12:8)

Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.(YHWH) (Gen 13:4)

The King James Bible has substituted "the LORD" for יְהוָֽה (YHWH or YHVH or Yehovah or Yahweh), which is the proper name of the God of Israel. The Jews would not take the name of the Lord as per the Ten Commandments (or so they believed it would be taking it in vain). They substituted Adonai (Lord) for YHWH so the KJV substituted "the LORD" in the same manner.

And I do not tell "whoppers" where Scripture truth is concerned, so you should know better than to even say such a thing.

 

[PinSeeker]

...what is the name of the son that Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize in per Matt 28:19?

Is the name "son"?

Is your name "son"?

Do you write "son" on your official documents?

Shall I call you "son" from now on?

If not, why not?

You (and user, I suppose) miss the point. Yes, the human name of the Son is Jesus, for sure, but the Name that's being referred to in Matthew 28:19 is one Name ~ the Name above all names ~ and is properly applied to the triune Jehovah. And what Peter says in Acts 2:38 is the same, except that the focus is slightly different because of who he's preaching to ~ Jews who hadn't previously realized that Jesus is the Messiah of God, the Christ, and thus part of the triune Jehovah.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[user]

Acts 2:38 "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."
This is an INVITATION to the crowd to be Baptized - a FUTURE EVENT.

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus)."
This is a descriptuin of PAST EVENT - of someone HAVING BEEN Baptized.

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus."
Once again, Einstein - this is a descriptuin of PAST EVENT - of someone HAVING BEEN Baptized.

Again, your lack of attention is missing the point - All those examples are using the NAME of Jesus (not Father, Son, Holy Ghost).

Now then, show me baptisms in the same fashion using the words, "Father, Son, Holy Ghost"

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, your lack of attention is missing the point - All those examples are using the NAME of Jesus (not Father, Son, Holy Ghost).

Now then, show me baptisms in the same fashion using the words, "Father, Son, Holy Ghost"

Ummmmm - NONE of the examples you gave were Baptisms - AS they were happening.
They were about past or future Baptisms.

And as for, "In the na,e of Jesus" - appatrntly you were alseep for the first THREE PAGES of posts where I repeatedly explained this to you. Here is the scholarly information from post #23 with regards to the meaning of the phrase, "In the name of".
Read it carefully - then come back and we'll have an intelligent conversation - IF you are able to . . .

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!”

 

[user]

Ummmmm - NONE of the examples you gave were Baptisms - AS they were happening.
They were about past or future Baptisms.

And as for, "In the na,e of Jesus" - appatrntly you were alseep for the first THREE PAGES of posts where I repeatedly explained this to you. Here is the scholarly information from post #23 with regards to the meaning of the phrase, "In the name of".
Read it carefully - then come back and we'll have an intelligent conversation - IF you are able to . . .

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!”

All that clucking and still you fail to produce a baptism using "Father, Son, Holy Ghost"

 

[BreadOfLife]

All that clucking and still you fail to produce a baptism using "Father, Son, Holy Ghost"

Just as YOU have failed to produce ANY example of a Baptism ritual in the NT
You can't because it DOESN'T exist.

And you STILL haven't answered my question about how you reject the Didache when it comesa to Baptism - yet you wholeheartedly accept the Didache when it comes to the ending doxology of the Lord's Prayer ("For thine is the kingdon . . .")??
Why are you so afraid to answer the question??

Your evasion is pathetic . . .

 

[Curtis]

Amen, the name Jesus commanded them to use per the son in Matt 28:19 is "Jesus", specifically.

This is why the book of Acts uses ONLY the name of Jesus during baptisms.

Modern Christendom has a completed NT but will not read it.

Sorry, you aren’t smarter than Jesus - if He meant to baptize in His name only, He’d have plainly said exactly that in Matthew 28:19.

Water baptism saves no one.

Paul said He was sent NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel.

The gospel for salvation does not include baptism, else Paul would have preached the gospel and baptized new converts immediately.,

 

[Truther]

WOW - I overestimated your abilities. I guess I'll have to dumb-it-down even more.
I'll just go verse-by-verse to make it easy on you . . .

Acts 2:38 "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."
This is an INVITATION to the crowd to be Baptized - a FUTURE EVENT.
NO Baptism is taking place here.

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus)."
This is a descriptuin of PAST EVENT - of someone HAVING BEEN Baptized.
NO Baptism is taking place here.

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus."
Once again, Einstein - this is a descriptuin of PAST EVENT - of someone HAVING BEEN Baptized.
NO Baptism is taking place here.

There is not ONE SINGLE Baptism ritual chronicled in the ENTIRE NT.
We get the WORDS of Baptism from Scripture (Matt. 28:19) and Sacred Tradition (The Didache).

Now - are you EVER going to answr my question about how you reject the Didache when it comesa to Baptism - yet you wholeheartedly accept the Didache when it comes to the ending doxology of the Lord's Prayer ("For thine is the kingdon . . .")??

Why are you so afraid to answer the question??

If I may....

The Roman Catholic cannot see that folks in the book of Acts were always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and no mention of "Father/Holy Ghost" ever being eluded to?

Are you still teaching folks NOT to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, which is exactly opposite of the Acts baptisms?

You Roman Catholics are extremely naughty.

 

[Truther]

That verse simply says "in the name of" and lists the three divine persons in the Godhead. Since you wanted to know what that name was, you were given the name. Now you wish to argue because the name is not in that verse, even though it is in other verses.

And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD (YHWH) (Gen 12:8)

Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.(YHWH) (Gen 13:4)

The King James Bible has substituted "the LORD" for יְהוָֽה (YHWH or YHVH or Yehovah or Yahweh), which is the proper name of the God of Israel. The Jews would not take the name of the Lord as per the Ten Commandments (or so they believed it would be taking it in vain). They substituted Adonai (Lord) for YHWH so the KJV substituted "the LORD" in the same manner.

And I do not tell "whoppers" where Scripture truth is concerned, so you should know better than to even say such a thing.

I get what you are implying here....

Jesus said this...

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:

Peter said this...

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.


And you teach this...

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of YHWH, and of the Holy Ghost:...

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of YHWH for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost....

....which is not found in any Bible on earth.

 

[Truther]

You (and user, I suppose) miss the point. Yes, the human name of the Son is Jesus, for sure, but the Name that's being referred to in Matthew 28:19 is one Name ~ the Name above all names ~ and is properly applied to the triune Jehovah. And what Peter says in Acts 2:38 is the same, except that the focus is slightly different because of who he's preaching to ~ Jews who hadn't previously realized that Jesus is the Messiah of God, the Christ, and thus part of the triune Jehovah.

Grace and peace to you.

If you agree with Peter and the 3000 at Pentecost per Acts 2:38, then why aren't you baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins yet?