Matthew 28:29
Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
So off they went into the book of Acts where incredibly not one of them ever baptised in this methodology. They all Baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, every time and without exception. Read the scripture again. "Baptise them in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost" and they used the name Jesus. His name is the one name given amount men by which which we may be saved. Not Jehovah. Jesus was the invisible god made visible and in him dwelt the "fullness" of the Godhead, not part or a third - the fullness all of god.
This piece of evidence is irrefutable and a wonderful revelation of the nature of God and the Godhead.
Originally posted by divegeester Matthew 28:29
Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
So off they went into the book of Acts where incredibly not one of them ever baptised in this methodology. They all Baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, every time and without exception. Read the scripture again. "Bapti ...[text shortened]... of evidence is irrefutable and a wonderful revelation of the nature of God and the Godhead.
This piece of evidence is irrefutable and a wonderful revelation of the nature of God and the Godhead. "Wonderful" is a matter of opinion, "irrefutable" is just plain wrong
Originally posted by divegeester No, wrong choice of words. Certainly it is refutable.
I am not sure exactly what you were saying is irrefutable, but no one has actually tried to refute it. They have only said that it is not irrefutable and that does not really prove it is refutable. But on the other hand, you now say it is refutable. So I guess no evidence needs to be presented that it is refutable and not irrefutable. Is what I have said here irrefutable or is it refutable? Does this make any sense at all?
Originally posted by RJHinds I am not sure exactly what you were saying is irrefutable, but no one has actually tried to refute it. They have only said that it is not irrefutable and that does not really prove it is refutable. But on the other hand, you now say it is refutable. So I guess no evidence needs to be presented that it is refutable and not irrefutable. Is what I have said ...[text shortened]... utable or is it refutable? Does this make any sense at all?
The Instructor
The Instructor
As you can well see I've said it is not irrefutable so why are you bringing it up.
Why don't you address the scripture from your trinitarian viewpoint?
Originally posted by divegeester As you can well see I've said it is not irrefutable so why are you bringing it up.
Why don't you address the scripture from your trinitarian viewpoint?
I was just trying to be humorous. But I don't see anything that I wish to refute, so I will leave the refuting up to someone that is more interested in refuting it.
Originally posted by RJHinds I was just trying to be humorous. But I don't see anything that I wish to refute, so I will leave the refuting up to someone that is more interested in refuting it.
The Instructor
Did the disciple get jesus instruction wrong?
As you claim to be an instructor yourself I thought you would have a view on this.
Originally posted by Agerg [b]This piece of evidence is irrefutable and a wonderful revelation of the nature of God and the Godhead. "Wonderful" is a matter of opinion, "irrefutable" is just plain wrong[/b]
he is aiming this thread at jws and their belief that jesus is less important than god-yahve? at least i think that's what the jws are thinking.
anywhoo, it is not meant as a debate between atheists and non
Originally posted by divegeester Did the disciple get jesus instruction wrong?
I could be wrong, but I am guessing Jesus' instruction was written in the Gospels which come after the act where I assume you are taking the bit about what the disciples did from. So no, they didn't get it wrong, but rather the gospel writers made up Jesus' instruction after most of the disciples were long dead.
Originally posted by twhitehead I could be wrong, but I am guessing Jesus' instruction was written in the Gospels which come after the act where I assume you are taking the bit about what the disciples did from. So no, they didn't get it wrong, but rather the gospel writers made up Jesus' instruction after most of the disciples were long dead.
Thanks twhitehead I see your POV as an atheist. I'm more interested in the trinitarian view of this scripture. Not sure what the JWs do about baptism but it will be in the name of Jehovah no doubt.
Originally posted by divegeester Thanks twhitehead I see your POV as an atheist. I'm more interested in the trinitarian view of this scripture. Not sure what the JWs do about baptism but it will be in the name of Jehovah no doubt.
you dont know but you proffer an assumption never the less, sorry dude, I cannot respect that.
Originally posted by divegeester Thanks twhitehead I see your POV as an atheist. I'm more interested in the trinitarian view of this scripture. Not sure what the JWs do about baptism but it will be in the name of Jehovah no doubt.
I think it is standard practice when two verses disagree, to assume that you are interpreting one of them wrongly, and that one, is the one that disagrees with your theology.
Considering the amount of interpretation required to accept that the Gospels are in any way factual, I think it would be trivial to find some interpretation that resolves your dilemma.
You of course will not be satisfied with it because it doesn't fit your own theology.
Originally posted by divegeester Matthew 28:29
Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
So off they went into the book of Acts where incredibly not one of them ever baptised in this methodology. They all Baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, every time and without exception. Read the scripture again. "Bapti ...[text shortened]... of evidence is irrefutable and a wonderful revelation of the nature of God and the Godhead.
None of this matters as "No man has seen God and lived". So you need to redesign your question with the correct facts first.
Did the disciples get it wrong?
28 Jun '13 05:351 edit
Back to Top