Understanding the purpose of Baptism?

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#201 May 20, 2013
So "in the name of Jesus Christ" is the same thing?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#202 May 20, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mike what about doing what Christ commands. Since when does the called out dish out commands. You do know the Church is the called out dont you? Oh yeah what is a sacrament and where in the bible is that term found.
The same place the world Bible is. Protestants are at a disadvantage. They only know part of God's word, the written Word.

I try to do everything Christ commands. Whoever hears his Church hears him. I don't remember him saying whoever reads a book hears him. The Catholic Church said to listen to what the Bible says. It created it. It is profitable for Teaching. Isn't that what Paul said the OT was? The Church who created the NT says the same thing about it.

Why dont you follow Christ and hear his Church?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#203 May 20, 2013
Randy_Craiger wrote:
So "in the name of Jesus Christ" is the same thing?
Does "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" ='' in the name of Jesus Christ"?

Nope. No Trinity there.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#204 May 20, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The same place the world Bible is. Protestants are at a disadvantage. They only know part of God's word, the written Word.
I try to do everything Christ commands. Whoever hears his Church hears him. I don't remember him saying whoever reads a book hears him. The Catholic Church said to listen to what the Bible says. It created it. It is profitable for Teaching. Isn't that what Paul said the OT was? The Church who created the NT says the same thing about it.
Why dont you follow Christ and hear his Church?
Man I want to take back that "listen to what the bible says.' Listen to what the Bible teaches"
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#205 May 20, 2013
A deeper study of the name of the Lord, Yehoshua/Y'shua reveals the name of God in the name of the Son of God.

So what would be the issue? Since Y'shua taught 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', wouldn't that be the best to incorporate? Seems prudent to me. I'd rather we start using what was given at Pentecost,'Master YHWY Y'shua', as that would be even better.
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#206 May 20, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" ='' in the name of Jesus Christ"?
Nope. No Trinity there.
You must remember the Jews did not believe in a trinity. Jesus, Peter, none of the apostles, nor any of the Old Testament prophets taught the trinity. It would be almost 400 years before it would become a doctrine. When the Messiah returns, our Lord Jesus may be surprised to learn of this new doctrine..
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#207 May 20, 2013
Tom Harpur:

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:

Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament:

By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confessed, is very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage,[the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:

By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#208 May 20, 2013
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
A History of The Christian Church:

1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early,(but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching,(or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, revises the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed."
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#209 May 20, 2013
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus. Concerning Matthew 28:19, Conybeare states, "Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany,...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.' " (Hibbert Journal, F. Coneybeare). Eusebius' rendering here (...make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME...) ties directly with Luke 24:47 as listed above (repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS [Jesus'] NAME among all nations). Conybeare states, "I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'.
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#210 May 20, 2013
Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p.136): "For he did not enjoin them to 'make disciples of all the nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to this appellation that the Apostle [Paul] says:'God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.' It was right therefore that he [Jesus] should emphasise the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles:'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in My name.' " (Hibbert Journal quoting Eusebius) Conybeare continues, "It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled:'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice." (Hibbert Journal, p.105). This has led scholars to suspect that he was persuaded to replace the original text. "The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities (Hibbert Journal)." Conybeare concludes: "It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of the words ' Father, Son, and Holy Ghost '[in Matthew 28:19] " (Fred Conybeare). At least two texts have been found that make no mention of these things: "Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place." (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636) "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's Evan Bohan) Let's now examine some writings of the other early "church fathers." "The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century...dwells at length on 'the power in the name of Jesus invoked upon a man in baptism' " (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p 352, quoting De Rebaptismate 6.7).
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#211 May 20, 2013
'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.' The last words appear to be a gloss of the Eusebian reading 'in my name.' But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptise in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible." (Conybeare). "Now Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day. If the Greek MS. there contained these words ["baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"], it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them." "Professor Lake...and Mr. Conybeare have called attention to this fact, and shown that neither Justin Martyr (who died in 185 A.D.), nor Aphraates, of Nisibis (who flourished in Syria, 340 A.D.), knew anything of these words." "It looks, therefore, as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa [possibly Alexandria, as we'll look at in a moment]; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS. at their disposal." (Bullinger, Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp.48,49) Many reference works denote the skepticism of scholars concerning the accuracy of this verse. The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states: "It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view [trinitarian formula]. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism." It continues, "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent." It also comments on the verse as such: "If it be thought as many critics think, that no MS represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice [which was almost universally performed with the triune formula in the post-apostolic days]. It seems easier to believe that the traditional [trinitarian] text was brought about by the [trinitarian baptismal] influence working on the Eusebian ["in My name"] text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it." (Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics; article: Baptism). In fact, Sir William Whiston stated, "We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption made in any one of them [the Scriptures] by either the Eusebians or Arians." (Second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p 15). "Different from the post-apostolic and later Christian liturgical praxis, which is marked by the trinitarian formula of Mt 28:19 (see Did. VII. i. 3; Just. Apol. LXI 3, 11, 13), the primitive Church baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus,'(or 'Jesus Christ,' or 'the Lord Jesus'; see I Co 1:13,15; Ac 8:16, 19:5; Did. ix. 5).
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#212 May 20, 2013
(Dictionary of the Bible, James Hasting, 1963, p.88, article: Baptism). "...the trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition..." (Harper's Bible Dictionary sixth edition, 1959, p.60 article: baptism). And in the eighth edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary, it states, "While the earliest formula of baptism seems to have been 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'(Acts 8:16, 10:48) the trinitarian formula obviously became the standard at a very early time." "Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as a later origin." (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Henry Austryn Wolfsan, p. 277). "In the last half of the fourth century, the text 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called 'pneumatomachi' or 'fighters against the Holy Spirit', because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius [meaning, they lacked the triune reading of Mt 28:19]" (Hibbert Journal , F. Conybeare). How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come? Fred Conybeare notes, "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited--but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows--'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' " (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287). Alexandria was a hotbed of philosophical thought. Jewish philosopher, Philo, lived in Alexandria and taught his false doctrines of Gnosticism there. He spoke of "...one God, who in Himself is unity, yet appears in the likeness of a triad." He stated that a "holy and divine vision" of the Rulership is perceived "...in such a way, that a single vision appears to him [the one having the vision] as a triad, and a triad as unity..." And again, he states that "...the intellect perceives most clearly a unity although previously it learned to apprehend it under the similitude of a Trinity." (E.R. Goodenough Light, By Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, p.33). Philo clearly taught the trinity doctrine, as did fellow philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato - a doctrine which they all received from the Mystery teachings of Babylon. These Mystery teachings were the source of Theodotus' "Christianized" Gnostic trinitarian doctrine cited by Clement of Alexandria. When did the corruption of the baptismal formula arise? According to Canney's Encyclopedia of Religion, the early church baptized in the name of Jesus until the second century. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11th ed., Vol 3, p365) agrees, stating that baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd century. And in Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p.389, it notes that baptism was always performed in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr.
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#213 May 20, 2013
And dats da truth.
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#214 May 20, 2013
What? They admit the truth? Why?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula,(Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
Dave P

Nicholasville, KY

#215 May 20, 2013
Spam, oh spam! Lol.
Doctor Da Truth

New York, NY

#216 May 20, 2013
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
Dave P

Nicholasville, KY

#217 May 20, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to be kinda 'strange' to be in that business, but he never heard of anybody going to hell at a funeral. A factual observance.
When you talked that day , did you say, don't be like my father in law, he is in hell or did you say, pray for his soul, with God anything is possible?
I did neither. I talked about his character, how much he loved his family, some things about him I wouldn't forget. I presented the good memories about him the family could cling to-that's the point of the funeral, at least to me. I then made sure everyone there heard the gospel. Funerals are for the living, not the dead.
Dave P

Nicholasville, KY

#218 May 20, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
A non-catholic is considered a Christian if they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and HS. They are lacking in that indelible seal from the anointing by oil however.
You will be anointed when you convert to Jesus' Church
Let's see, they are a Christian without the seal. The seal is the Holy Spirit. Paul said if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His. We are sealed unto the day of redemption. BUT-as long as we're baptized in name of Father, Son, and Spirit we're Christians-but don't have the seal. But we have to convert to catholicism to receive it. What if we don't convert, and Jesus shows up, and we're Christians but not sealed? Are we ok, or out of luck? And we're Christians, but not in the REAL body of Christ. Just like unbelievers aren't really married, but are in concubinage right?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is catholic logic at it's best. Uggh.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#219 May 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see, they are a Christian without the seal. The seal is the Holy Spirit. Paul said if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His. We are sealed unto the day of redemption. BUT-as long as we're baptized in name of Father, Son, and Spirit we're Christians-but don't have the seal. But we have to convert to catholicism to receive it. What if we don't convert, and Jesus shows up, and we're Christians but not sealed? Are we ok, or out of luck? And we're Christians, but not in the REAL body of Christ. Just like unbelievers aren't really married, but are in concubinage right?
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is catholic logic at it's best. Uggh.
Totally agree! Pure nonsense, to put in nicely.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#220 May 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
I did neither. I talked about his character, how much he loved his family, some things about him I wouldn't forget. I presented the good memories about him the family could cling to-that's the point of the funeral, at least to me. I then made sure everyone there heard the gospel. Funerals are for the living, not the dead.
Good stuff, I have requested of my family that the gospel be revealed at my funeral.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) Fri William 3,351
i gotta doo doo!!! Jul 1 Captain peckerlips 1
I like to get on some buttseckz.. I aint gay.. ... Jun 23 Captain peckerlips 1
Who got da biggest pecker in all uh Furrum? Jun 23 Captain peckerlips 1
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun '16 Kevo8263 32
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun '16 sarasmith 2
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages