-Removed-I was only twelve years old, so I don't remember exactly. However, It was in a Southern Baptist Church and the minister normally says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" just like is recorded in Matthew of the Authorized King James Version which was the version they used at that time.
The Instructor
-Removed-Well, I believe it is the intent that matters. I see no need to be that legalistic about it. However, if I did, I would ask to be baptized in the name Yahshua, because I believe that is more correct than the name Jesus. But the Church defintely taught the Triune God doctrine, because I remember singing, "Holy, Holy, Holy, God in three persons, blessed Trinity" a lot.
The Instructor
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe divegeester's point was that the two verses (this verse in Matthew and the baptizing in Acts) do NOT disagree.
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.
But then I can accept that someone might make that mistake when they don't believe in the Bible at all ANYway. One wonders why you even have a horse in this race. But then one realizes that you really don't.
-Removed-You're not annoying me. I'm just pointing out the discussion you are trying to have. In other words, you are self righteous in your circular reasoning.
There is not thrust and banter. All you have is one group saying I'm right and you are wrong, while anyone who disagrees takes the same position from the other side of the board.