Spirituality
28 Jun 13
28 Jun 13
1 edit
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.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by divegeesterThis piece of evidence is irrefutable and a wonderful revelation of the nature of God and the Godhead.
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.
"Wonderful" is a matter of opinion, "irrefutable" is just plain wrong
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by divegeesterI 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?
No, wrong choice of words. Certainly it is refutable.
The Instructor
The Instructor
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAs you can well see I've said it is not irrefutable so why are you bringing it up.
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
Why don't you address the scripture from your trinitarian viewpoint?
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by divegeesterI 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.
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?
The Instructor
28 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDid the disciple get jesus instruction wrong?
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
As you claim to be an instructor yourself I thought you would have a view on this.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by Agerghe 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.
[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]
anywhoo, it is not meant as a debate between atheists and non
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by divegeesterI 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.
Did the disciple get jesus instruction wrong?
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks 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 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.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by divegeesteryou dont know but you proffer an assumption never the less, sorry dude, I cannot respect that.
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.
28 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterI 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.
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.
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.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by divegeesterNone of this matters as "No man has seen God and lived". So you need to redesign your question with the correct facts first.
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.